Do you want "scientific proof"?, page 14

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

"Probably because you *CAN'T* (cute little asterisks) answer the question without making yourself look like a fool."

"Probably"

"Probably"

Almost certainly, I would think....

Because instead of just answering my question, you have just distracted from it further.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. Since you, yourself, have made that statement, I now know the truth.
^--Sarcasm

But didn't you say that Belief and Perception creates reality?

By that logic, you must take everything I say as truth, because BY YOUR LOGIC, it is automatically.

Why are we even still arguing this point?

I am right no matter which of our arguments is valid.

You say yes, I say no. It's all opinion now, in regards to practical use (let's not get semantic again, please). That's just how you perceive reality, is all.

It doesn't matter how you perceive reality..... reality exists BEYOND your perceptions of it.

It doesn't matter whether you believe this or not, it is undeniably true.

Reality is *REAL*, it is not a figment of your perceptions, it EXISTS DESPITE YOUR OBSERVATIONS.

Prove it. =D

How did the first life-form come into existence, if there was no Perception (Concious or subconscious) to perceive it into existence?

Check-Mate.

Of course, your conscious mind isn't aware of that thought. Usually it becomes subconsciously habitual. As for what was the first perception that resulted in the very first toe-stub. I haven't a clue.

ErtaiNaGia
Then why are you arguing the point as if you do?

Because I made the argument

You walked into that one yourself.

You have a vey bad habit of putting words in people's mouth.

And that is merely a fabrication on your part.

ErtaiNaGia
How did the first life form come into existence, if there was no SUB-concious mind to "Deus Ex Machina" them into existence?

How am I suppose to know that? That is an extreeeeeeeemely vague question that cold result in many variable answers, none of which I would know any way.

That's because you *CAN'T* answer the question, because the premise itself is Provably Untrue, as I have demonstrated.

In order for the first subconscious mind capable of perception to come into existence, it would have to have been PERCEIVED into existence by a previous subconscious (or concious) mind.

this is an example of Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause:
en.wikipedia.org...

That is essentially asking the ultimate "Big Bang" question.

Hey, it's your proposition, all I am asking is that you defend it.

Any way, was fun. Goodnight.

You think we are done?

Awwww... that's so cute...

Also, wow haha. I love how rational you are. (more sarcasm).

"Propagandists". Really? Really?!

I kind of feel bad for arguing with you now...

Why, because I am trouncing your argument, and exposing you as a fraud?

I see you are still twisting things for your benefit. Tooth and nail

You are also stating that your sub concious mind creates reality, Remember?

Including creating your body.

Try not to contradict yourself in the span of a mere 2 posts... its amateurish.

It's not a contradiction, silly. It's an addition.

>Implying that I am taking things out of context.

>Implying you aren't.

You have already demonstrated an awareness of the differentiation between "Dreams" and *REALITY*.....

Not really sure where you got that, but that seems to be your style. Of course let's not forget that quote that I posted saying that "life is a dream and dreams are dreams". That is DEFINITELY a differentiation. How astute.

Do you really want to go there?

>Implying we haven't already been there.

In the end, it really does come down to your own personal belief. Unless, of course, you are a nihilist and don't believe in anything.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see you choose to read some of my words but not all of them. How expected. Let's look at another quote of mine:

Belief does not create reality. Reality is already created, by your perception. Belief is more-or-less an opinion. I can believe that Unicorns exist but that does not mean I will perceive them.

=)

You are forgetting that Reality is subjective and is unique perceived by each individual's mind =)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Did I state conscious or subconscious?

Since this is each individual's reality, one could technically fall victim to a means of perceiving the existence of the Earth as nil.

Of course, there are various means but I will state the example of a societally deemed "mental" person. His/her mind could become so altered that they could start perceiving the Earth as non-existant. They could have visual disturbances (hallucinations) that cause them to view the Universe as if they are floating in space, and the world is no longer existant to them because of some tragic accident.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, "consciousness mind" was never claimed. I forget that you work under very basic understanding and I apologize for not making the distinction sooner.

ErtaiNaGia
Then you agree that reality is objective, as opposed to subjective.

No. Believed, not perceived.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Let's see what that actually was a response too:

No, at least that is not how I see. I can't speak for others in here. The fact that some scientific theories have been disproven is evidence that things may not be how we once believed.

See above for the definition of belief in relation to perception. That is why I said "No. Believed, not perceived." just to clarify that you weren't reading the sentence as "the fact that some scientific theories have been disproven is evidence that things may not be how we once perceived." Believed, not perceived.

reply to post by LionOfGOD

---

I am drawn to your name for very personal reasons..... and how odd your post is on the very subject i have just made a post myself.Who gives two hoots about what scientist thing.... they get an idea and then set out to proove it. Do ET's exist..... from personal experience YES. But im not out to make people believe... just to say i have had first hand experience of beings that are LIGHT. If you can think outside the box then you are allowing your mind to be open to all possibilities.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

I see you are still twisting things for your benefit. Tooth and nail

False statements will not win you any points.

You are acting as if because of the statement of subconscious perception, that action does not exist. Reality is created, and with it physical items. Physical items that run systematically. Remember, the subconscious mind accounts for 90% of your mental function, which includes controlling the brain to regulate the body. Sheesh, take things out of context more, please.

You are also stating that your sub concious mind creates reality, Remember?

Including creating your body.

Try not to contradict yourself in the span of a mere 2 posts... its amateurish.

It's not a contradiction, silly. It's an addition.

You are stating that your sub-concious mind creates reality, including your brain.

You are stating the Contrary position that your sub-concious mind accounts for 90% of your mental functions, when you have very clearly stated that your higher mental functions only *EXIST* because of the perceptions of your sub-concious mind.

Hence, Contradiction.

Silly.

>Implying that I am taking things out of context.

>Implying you aren't.

Still just copying me, I see....

You have already demonstrated an awareness of the differentiation between "Dreams" and *REALITY*.....

Not really sure where you got that, but that seems to be your style. Of course let's not forget that quote that I posted saying that "life is a dream and dreams are dreams". That is DEFINITELY a differentiation. How astute.

That just supports the fact that the mind creates reality. You were asleep. You dreamt

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Are you really arguing against my statement that you are aware of the distinction between dream and waking life?

Seriously?

Do you really want to go there?

>Implying we haven't already been there.

You apparently missed the part where you got "Told"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see you choose to read some of my words but not all of them. How expected. Let's look at another quote of mine:

Belief does not create reality. Reality is already created, by your perception. Belief is more-or-less an opinion. I can believe that Unicorns exist but that does not mean I will perceive them.

Yeah... about that....

ErtaiNaGia
Then you agree that reality is objective, as opposed to subjective.

No. Believed, not perceived.

So, belief does not create reality, except that belief DOES create reality, eh?

Nice one...

Since this is each individual's reality, one could technically fall victim to a means of perceiving the existence of the Earth as nil.

Of course, there are various means but I will state the example of a societally deemed "mental" person. His/her mind could become so altered that they could start perceiving the Earth as non-existant. They could have visual disturbances (hallucinations) that cause them to view the Universe as if they are floating in space, and the world is no longer existant to them because of some tragic accident.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, "consciousness mind" was never claimed. I forget that you work under very basic understanding and I apologize for not making the distinction sooner.

Visual Disturbances implies a concious level of perception... You very clearly meant Concious, and not subconcious.

Ok, Hold on.... let me see if I am reading this different thing correctly.....

Now, Stop me if I'm misinterpreting this.... but I believe that the common "Wisdom" in this thread is:

The fact that some scientific theories have been disproved, despite people believing in them, is PROOF that belief creates reality?

IS this the game you all are playing?

No, at least that is not how I see. I can't speak for others in here. The fact that some scientific theories have been disproven is evidence that things may not be how we once believed.

ErtaiNaGia
Then you agree that reality is objective, as opposed to subjective.

No. Believed, not perceived.

See above for the definition of belief in relation to perception. That is why I said "No. Believed, not perceived." just to clarify that you weren't reading the sentence as "the fact that some scientific theories have been disproven is evidence that things may not be how we once perceived." Believed, not perceived.

I asked you if reality was objective or subjective.

Whether the subjective differences come form belief or perception is irrelevant.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

Well, if THEY believe that the earth is flat.... then how are they able to use satellite communications?

Shouldn't their "Perception" of reality interfere with the communication satellites orbits?

Their perception or their belief? Regardless, how am I supposed to know a question relevant to someone else? Why don't you ask them like I suggested?

If their perceptions create reality, then their perception in the flat earth (or belief, whatever) would (by your logic) make the earth FLAT for them, thus orbits would not function, and communication satellites would not be accessible to them.

Regarding belief or perception creating reality, you are the one splitting hairs, as I know that neither creates reality.

You are just trying to distract from the issues again.

I see you didn't bother answering the question anyway.

***CLEARLY*** I see how your perception works. See my previous reply.

No, you really don't.

You are still confusing Perception with Reality.

Just because you don't perceive something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Sorry but that is exactly what it means.

You are still wrong.

IT exists DESPITE their perceptions of it.

To others, yes, as I stated, but not to them. It does not exist for them. (i.e the difference between subjective and objective reality)

Your distinction is pointless mental masturbation.

Almost certainly, I would think....

"Almost"

You forgot the "Certainly" part....

See previous replies, but feel free to continue beating that dead horse.

Don't like having your own twisted logic quoted back to you?

How did the first life-form come into existence, if there was no Perception (Concious or subconscious) to perceive it into existence?

Check-Mate.

I know you regard me as having all the answers and being all-knowing, and for that I am flattered, but I have no clue how. Just because I do not have an opinion or fact does not meant it didn't somehow happen. Again that is like asking someone "How did the Universe get created?" or asking a Christian "How did God create himself?"

Some would regard that as the ultimate question, one of which I have no answer for.

You seem to be missing the point of my question....

You *CAN'T* answer it, by definition.

Your world-view *REQUIRES* an endless series of Reality creating perceptions stretching back to infinity.

Literally.

You cannot defend that position, because doing so would reveal your entire perspective as Religion, as opposed to science.

Which brings me to my final point....

You aren't arguing Scientifically....

You are arguing Theologically.

Come now. We aren't arguing about absolute proofs again, are we?

IT doesn't matter anyway, You don't believe in absolute truth.

Again this could be comparable to the big bang theory. Some people suggest that "there was nothing and then there was something", without giving to the possibility that "there always just was something". However, since you have been alive for the entire existence of the Universe, I suppose you would know, right?

Your entire premise is based upon Either the perception of a God, or an infinitely Long universe with no beginning, that was ALWAYS populated by beings capable of perception.

No, because you seem to have this juvenile twisted mental process that implies I am "a propagandists out to deceive people and completely prove science as being meaningless". I know this is a conspiracy website but not everything is a conspiracy

Balderdash.... You are stating that Reality does not exist, plain and simple.

That's why I feel bad for arguing with you.

You are more throwing a tantrum than arguing....

Regardless, as I have witnessed your final responses it merely seems to be an argument of yes/no. I say that something is and you say no. You say that something is and I say no. This is just what we believe (not to be confused with perception).

Calling it quits?

No offense to you but this dragged-out long enough and it is extremely annoying to just have to run in circles chasing each other.

This is correct.

I have supported my claim with enough substantial evidence.

This is incorrect.

The same questions will just end up getting answered again

This is also incorrect, you never answered them the first time.

and my words will obviously continue to get twisted by you where I will then have to respond explaining the untwisted version.

That's so cute... blaming me for what you are doing.

That has been the theme as of the last few pages, any way.

I have no doubt that you BELIEVE this to be the case.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

As evidence of most of your posts, especially your first couple, I know you have been regarding this as a "battle" and I'm sure it would please you to get the last word in. So, I will allow for it. Thanks for the conversation. Enjoy.

And I didn't even have enough room on the last post to place this one on there....

Anyway.... Yes, I regard this as a battle, I thought that was obvious.

So, without further adieu:

The Last Word:


The foundation of your argument is inherently contradictory.

The reason for this, is that you are stating that Science can never achieve "Absolute Truth"

"Absolute truth" being an OBJECTIVE truth that is true regardless of belief, or perception.

Despite this, You maintain that "Absolute Truth" is possible, and at the same time, you are of the opinion that "Perception (or Belief) Creates Reality."

So, as my final word... I leave you with a simple Question:






If Perception (or Belief) creates reality, then what happens if someone Perceives (or Believes) "Absolute Truth" to be wrong?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

---

There comes a time when something happens so many times it is proof.

Your first line is wrong. Correlation does not equal causation. With your logic, one could say that since X% of people develop mental disorders from doing Y, then Y must cause the mental disorders. It is not a cause, it is merely a probable factor.

reply to post by Saintwolf

---

Correlation does not equal causation

Wrong topic. This is reality, Not God. Please argue more intelligently.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Saintwolf

---

Correlation does not equal causation

Wrong topic. This is reality, Not God. Please argue more intelligently.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

Ok, so please explain to me what part of my statement implied I wasn't talking about reality? In addition enlighten me as to where exactly I was talking about God? (This should be a hoot)

I enjoy your hypocrisy in stating that I should 'argue more intelligently' when what you're saying is completely moot in relation to my post. Do you even know what you are talking about? Given the evidence one would have to say no.

I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or just a degenerate.

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

---

I would argue that there is 'absolute truth' to science. The problem is, that nothing can be completely verified as the absolute truth since there could be much more to that particular subject that hasn't been theorised/tested yet.

Take the Standard Model for Physics as an example. It's not complete but is still widely regarded as the 'absolute truth' since it is taught in schools as such. If the Higgs Boson particle is shown to be non-existent (Which even then might not be an absolute truth, they might just be testing for it wrong ), then everything we know about physics is likely to be wrong and new theories will have to account for our physics.

Nothing in science can be truly proven. People thought it was 'absolute truth' that nothing could go faster than c, until CERN started firing off neutrinos.

Anyway, I do agree with you. A == A just as Physics == Physics. The rules will not change, only our understanding of the rules.

reply to post by Saintwolf

---

In reality, specifically scientific matters, correlation does equate to Connection.

This is because science deals with finite experimental entities.

As such, because experiments are controlled, correlation = connection.

Gravity, Electrical energy, chemistry, etc etc. All these things deals with the very fact that correlation = connection. Science cannot be done with this fact.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Saintwolf

---

In reality, specifically scientific matters, correlation does equate to Connection.

This is because science deals with finite experimental entities.

As such, because experiments are controlled, correlation = connection.

Gravity, Electrical energy, chemistry, etc etc. All these things deals with the very fact that correlation = connection. Science cannot be done with this fact.

I shall direct you to: en.wikipedia.org...
More specifically example 5:

Since the 1950s, both the atmospheric CO2 level and obesity levels have increased sharply. Hence, atmospheric CO2 causes obesity.

Does CO2 cause obesity? From a biological perspective it cannot be ruled out but you can not define the cause due to correlation.

Just so you know, correlation and connection mean basically the same thing. Correlation does not mean CAUSATION. Not all experiments can be controlled perfectly, there may be certain physics that we don't even know of that could cause anomalies in a scientific investigation, thus rendering the whole test pointless (unbeknownst to the scientist of course).

Also you have yet to explain where I made any sort of theist comment...

reply to post by redoubt

---

My first impression of you was that you were "scapegoating" science. You were blaming science for something that science is not guilty of. But actually I think you're saying something different.

I've always been more intuitive than objective. They say that one side of the brain is literal and the other is more abstract. If this is true, maybe I have developed more connections on the side that's abstract. All through my time growing up I was attracted to the creative arts. Was always more of a concern to me than objective truth. I enjoyed fantasy and philosophy and still do. I also enjoy to wrestle with systems. Systems can be anything. Nothing has had to be empirical. Everything is a thought experiment. I could try to limit myself to only objective truths, but to me that would be too boring and probably too slow. It might be more productive, but it's against my nature. I'm too lazy.

I have a soft spot for scientists. But why're most scientists democrat? And they do tend to be more liberal. On a range of 1-10 (+/-), I am liberal/libertarian: -3.25/-3.25. My score can be found here:
www.politicalcompass.org ...

So I am more of a lefty than a righty. But I am not a scientist.

I didn't learn to be this way because of school. I think I am this way because this is the way I am. This is the way my brain developed. My Myers-Briggs personality type is INTP. My score for Intuition was roughly 68% both times I took a test a couple years apart. My world is more internal.

I do not want the world to end. I have a preference for science and cheer scientists in my own mind like an audience cheers a sports team. I find a lot of inspiration in them, especially in astrophysics and astronomy and related things that feel almost spiritual in scale. Some people might view me as a nihilist, though. I can't change that. I don't restrict my mind to uplifting subjects. I always focus my thoughts on the negative side of life because these're more interesting to me. I mean, when you look at the world, isn't it the problems that need fixing, not the things that already work? Why fix what isn't broken? Maybe that's why I focus on the problems, or what I perceive to be problems.

Logically, I feel that we cannot know anything for sure. We might exist in a simulation. We just don't know. But is that likely? I have no idea. I do think that in our objective reality we must depend on scientists, but if I'm pressured to make an empirical statement, I will decline. That's because I realize that I cannot make an empirical statement since I have faith in scientists being right. Faith is not empirical. I can only make an empirical statement when I have as much conviction and knowledge as true scientists do. Since I don't have that level of knowledge, I cannot. So I always keep an open mind. But I, if forced to, will default to science. Science has the best chance of being right.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

---

what if it is discovered en-mass, that humanity have all been inside a virtual matrix...Then none of any substances observed and interacted with have ever been what they are believed.

for instance the rock in question?... merely sensory impressions feed into ones brain.

reply to post by Spiratio

---

Ok then prove this empirically otherwise you just said the spaghetti monster lives inside the moon. Saying this is all a simulation is not different from saying that Santa Claus is responsible.

Science doesn't respond to something like this.

But philosophers will. You're just in the wrong neck of the woods.

And, btw, I kind of agree with you. I think one of the best pieces of supporting evidence that this is a simulation is the law of energy conservation. Why do I say this? Because when resources deplete, they preventing us players from hacking the game. Sure, we can hack, but since nothing lasts forever, we'll eventually end with nothing left to hack. Since energy conservation also ensures that energy only transforms then all the energy of the universe still remains in some form or another. This way, after we're done hacking, the energy can, one way or another, find its way back to where it came from. Or it could be used by us to create new micro-universes or something. This is different, you see, from hacking a game without energy conservation. I can hack a game (or cheat) and get infinite money (essentially). But I cannot infinitely hack a game if it has energy conservation built-in.

Sort of like... We can be dumbsh*** on earth, but our escapade is limited to earth. If we suddenly had the power of the gods we could consume the whole universe. Luckily, we cannot. Is that a coincidence or is it the divine will of the creators of our reality? We're, in effect, inside a cage.

None of this is empirical or submittable to science. It's the purest speculation and fun.

Pokemon discovered in Venezuela
  Posted 14 days ago with 47 member flags

89-Year-Old Man Develops Bladeless Bird-Friendly Wind Turbine
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags

Amazing snowflake images that you have never seen before.
  Posted 14 days ago with 44 member flags

Energy Solutions THEY don\'t want you to know about
  Posted 14 days ago with 35 member flags

High speed video reveals the bizarre physics of an ordinary water droplet
  Posted 4 days ago with 32 member flags

Does this video show a working self propelled magnetic engine?
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags

Viruses: alive or not?
  Posted 11 days ago with 30 member flags

NASA reveals secrets it has hidden on the Curiosity rover.
  Posted 17 days ago with 29 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: