There Is No Such Thing As Non-Physical Reality!

OK buddy, if you think so.

You sound like you have a wealth of experience. Tell me this grand master of knowledge, have you ever tried '___'? or have you ever been for an in-between life regression? surely you must have encountered all aspects of the available physical experience to come up with this daring thread. If you have I would like to hear you thoughts on the aforementioned.

If not then you could well be a highly indoctrinated left brained little boy with 100% book knowledge of what you are allowed to know. Yes that's correct you are a sucker, witch gobbles up useless literature to half heartedly gain respect from your puppet masters who pat your back in public and mock you in private. I put it to you that you spend your life in your bedroom and haven't even looked out of the window yet. Plato's Cave springs to mind. And yes I did get what you are tying to say in your post, but if you haven't experienced the above, then you haven't had any real questions thrown at you yet.

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

oh look! what the "great minds are saying:

This, science's Ultimate Skepticism, has been spreading ever since then. Over the past two years even Darwinism, a sacred tenet among American scientists for the past seventy years, has been beset by...doubts. Scientists—not religiosi—notably the mathematician David Berlinski ("The Deniable Darwin," Commentary, June 1996) and the biochemist Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box, 1996), have begun attacking Darwinism as a mere theory, not a scientific discovery, a theory woefully unsupported by fossil evidence and featuring, at the core of its logic, sheer mush. (Dennett and Dawkins, for whom Darwin is the Only Begotten, the Messiah, are already screaming. They're beside themselves, utterly apoplectic. Wilson, the giant, keeping his cool, has remained above the battle.) By 1990 the physicist Petr Beckmann of the University of Colorado had already begun going after Einstein. He greatly admired Einstein for his famous equation of matter and energy, E=mc2, but called his theory of relativity mostly absurd and grotesquely untestable. Beckmann died in 1993. His Fool Killer's cudgel has been taken up by Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut, who has many admirers among the upcoming generation of Ultimately Skeptical young physicists. The scorn the new breed heaps upon quantum mechanics ("has no real–world applications"..."depends entirely on fairies sprinkling goofball equations in your eyes"), Unified Field Theory ("Nobel worm bait"), and the Big Bang Theory ("creationism for nerds") has become withering. If only Nietzsche were alive! He would have relished every minute of it!

www.orthodoxytoday.org...

PS: DerepentLEstranger = [french] suddenly, a stranger

edit on 30-7-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry that I assumed you were an idealist with a bone to pick with materialists. I was wrong. And I want to also apologize for my attitude towards your post. I have a problem with over generalizations, as that's a sure way to dehumanize and devalue humanity, which you are a part of.

And yes, that's the second time you've posted your moral memoirs. What a display of one's wounds. If you fear science so much, go all out and stop using the computer, stop typing to people on the internet. Or does your morals only extend to what suits you?

Before we lapse into some battle over the morality of science, let's hear an argument that may refute the OPs post, and I will reply in kind and with the utmost respect. If moral vanity is all you seek, we shall leave it at that.

and there you go again
ASSumning things and making shiiit up

allow me to dispel your willful ignorance

1st off i'm not anti-science
i've been an amateur astronomer since i was 5
an incurable bibliophile, i was reading college textbooks on astronomy, astrophysics, and anything i felt would advance my goal [since the age of 3] of becoming an astronaut at 8.

i became a conspiratologist and an atheist at 12, i'm not going to go into the details here, but my decision to abandon my dream is related to the former.
i am a college dropout that majored in mathematics and minored in chemistry.

and have been a practicing occultist for the last 25 years

i am not anti-science, and certainly not afraid of it or a ludditte, but anti-pseudoscience, especially when the pseudoscience is politics disguising itself as such . or pseudoscience promoted by followers of the oligarchic principal , or "scientists" and "science " that whore themselves out for money

as i've pointed out and which you refuse to address any points of, other than to call them my moral memoirs, which is very ironic as the agenda and pseudo-philosophy you are defending is anti- morality as well as anti-science.

slipped up there didn't you?

so i very much doubt you have, as a nihilistic-materialist, anything to say about morality or worthwhile at all.


Y U MAD BRO?

it's all just matter in motion and chemicals farting around in the brain following hardwired and genetically predetermined paths

so my opinions or what i think shouldn't matter to you, who being being just a naked ape deluding himself that his opinions or life matter [according to your teeny-tiny pinhole positivist-reductionist POV, of course , i am not saying you are those things, you are, or rather you subscribe to belief- system that says you are]

so too bad for you followers of the material [as well as the transcendental] paradigms
you are backing paradigms that are in decline.

meanwhile the Magical Paradigm RISES

religion has failed and broken it's promises,
while corporate "science" wants to turn us all into robots.

but the Dragon of the Imagination defies you
and The Spirit trumps all.

Immanentize the Eschaton

I would like to make two more points. One as a general observation, and another as a further aid to conceptualizing what I am talking about when I say 'everything is physical' in relation to reconciling materialism with 'higher planes of reality' or 'spiritual realities.'

Try to imagine yourself as a nucleus. There are, according to a quick google search about 7*10^27 atoms within the body, or 7 with 27 0's after it. So, just your body, which you consider to be your unified whole, your unified self, who you are, has that many atoms. So now try to image your 'self' as a nucleus. Imagine some thought-sequence causing an alteration of, say 100 atoms, which would be practically nothing, relative to the total number of atoms in the body. I don't know the specifics, but the if you compare the relative sizes of your body to a single nucleus, that shift of 100 atoms produced by your thought-sequence may produce a change in environment the size of an entire state, relative to your body. Then 'you,' as a nucleus, would essentially have an area the size of an entire state to act within your thought, yet it would make practically no impact whatsoever to 'you' as a body.

This is just one example of me trying to help you conceptualize what I am talking about, and make it relatable. Just one walkthrough to help you understand how a physical reality of a smaller scale can completely fulfill any possible notion of non-physical or spiritual realities, without having to imagine it as something altogether different.

The observation is that, I find it humorous how over time, as I attempt to explain similar ideas using different phrasing that makes it appear at first glance, linguistically, to be completely different ideas, people conceptualize me as being completely different. I've been called everything on every side of the dualities over time, all over very similar ideas, all coming from me. Atheist, ultra-religious, materialist, new-ager, on and on...kinda humorous

reply to post by TheJourney


if we are made of atoms and atoms are 99% empty space i find your idea to be flawed....everything is made up of 99% non-physical. therefore if non-physical reality did not exist nothing would exist.....make sense?

Originally posted by TheJourney

1
Try to imagine yourself as a nucleus. There are, according to a quick google search about 7*10^27 atoms within the body, or 7 with 27 0's after it. So, just your body, which you consider to be your unified whole, your unified self, who you are, has that many atoms. So now try to image your 'self' as a nucleus. Imagine some thought-sequence causing an alteration of, say 100 atoms, which would be practically nothing, relative to the total number of atoms in the body. I don't know the specifics, but the if you compare the relative sizes of your body to a single nucleus, that shift of 100 atoms produced by your thought-sequence may produce a change in environment the size of an entire state, relative to your body. Then 'you,' as a nucleus, would essentially have an area the size of an entire state to act within your thought, yet it would make practically no impact whatsoever to 'you' as a body.

have you read Castaneda?
i had to read it twice [the above quote, not castaneda] but the second time the image of the luminous egg [assemblage of atoms] and the assemblage point [nucleus] came to mind movements or shifts of the latter within the former create changes ranging from perceptual shifts to shapeshifting to moving from one reality to another

2
The observation is that, I find it humorous how over time, as I attempt to explain similar ideas using different phrasing that makes it appear at first glance, linguistically, to be completely different ideas, people conceptualize me as being completely different. I've been called everything on every side of the dualities over time, all over very similar ideas, all coming from me. Atheist, ultra-religious, materialist, new-ager, on and on...kinda humorous

edit on 30-7-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

the purpose of language is to communicate, though transferring information might be more accurate and would encompass lying which requires language.

so either you need to brush up and practice either your Praxis of Antinomianism, or communication skills

because if the message gets lost in the noise...
or creates discordant echoes...

or was that your intent after all?
to cast a cadmium stone
and start a war of all 'gainst all

Originally posted by TheJourney
.
The observation is that, I find it humorous how over time, as I attempt to explain similar ideas using different phrasing that makes it appear at first glance, linguistically, to be completely different ideas, people conceptualize me as being completely different. I've been called everything on every side of the dualities over time, all over very similar ideas, all coming from me. Atheist, ultra-religious, materialist, new-ager, on and on...kinda humorous

edit on 30-7-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

this i can very much relate to...i find it funny/odd how most need to label to relate...

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
have you read Castaneda?
i had to read it twice [the above quote, not castaneda] but the second time the image of the luminous egg [assemblage of atoms] and the assemblage point [nucleus] came to mind movements or shifts of the latter within the former create changes ranging from perceptual shifts to shapeshifting to moving from one reality to another

I read some of, though have not yet finished reading, "The Art of Dreaming." His ideas on the assemblage point are not how I have typically looked at things per se, and it upon reading it seemed strange, and yet I have not been able to deny that it seems to be a very useful way of looking at things, not to mention interesting.

so either you need to brush up and practice either your Praxis of Antinomianism, or communication skills

because if the message gets lost in the noise...
or creates discordant echoes...

or was that your intent after all?
to cast a cadmium stone
and start a war of all 'gainst all

For me, I see how people who think they have vastly different opinions actually don't disagree so much, just use different words and labels to describe their ideas, which are actually very similar. People sometimes believe 'opposite things,' but actually believe the same thing, but use terminoligies which are perceived as diametrically opposed. Similarly, I see people who think they agree, when actually they think very differently, just use the same terminology to describe their different ideas.

I, therefore, have taken it upon myself to understand the unity among various ideas which are seen as being opposed, and working out their relationship with each other, and how they can be inter-changed. I therefore use different terminologies over time, which to most people's minds, who interpret things purely based on pre-conceived notions of vague labels, would generally seem to be opposing. Yet one who reads for meaning can see the consistent message between the various terminologies, and can therefore understand the unity, or central point from which these concepts and terms stem.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Y U MAD BRO?

it's all just matter in motion and chemicals farting around in the brain following hardwired and genetically predetermined paths

so my opinions or what i think shouldn't matter to you, who being being just a naked ape deluding himself that his opinions or life matter [according to your teeny-tiny pinhole positivist-reductionist POV, of course , i am not saying you are those things, you are, or rather you subscribe to belief- system that says you are]

so too bad for you followers of the material [as well as the transcendental] paradigms
you are backing paradigms that are in decline.

meanwhile the Magical Paradigm RISES

religion has failed and broken it's promises,
while corporate "science" wants to turn us all into robots.

but the Dragon of the Imagination defies you
and The Spirit trumps al

No need to be upset sir. And please, hold your cards closer to your chest, I'm not interested in reading your badly punctuated dogma or your childhood.

You do have a strong imagination, I'll give you that. I can tell by your ability to abstract everything. You've even naively attempted to quantify me through labels and such. It's futile. You can keep swinging at that image of me all you want, but you're hitting nothing but air. I am just words on a screen, but you see me as something more: a positivist-reductionist, a materialist liken to genocidal dictators such as Mao and Stalin. Well of course I am. I'm anything you wish me to be.

Nonetheless, out of respect for the OP and the thread topic I had wished to debate, I must end our digression. I apologize for the time we've both wasted, and I'm glad you have everything figured out.

Originally posted by TheJourney


I read some of, though have not yet finished reading, "The Art of Dreaming." His ideas on the assemblage point are not how I have typically looked at things per se, and it upon reading it seemed strange, and yet I have not been able to deny that it seems to be a very useful way of looking at things, not to mention interesting.

For me, I see how people who think they have vastly different opinions actually don't disagree so much, just use different words and labels to describe their ideas, which are actually very similar. People sometimes believe 'opposite things,' but actually believe the same thing, but use terminoligies which are perceived as diametrically opposed. Similarly, I see people who think they agree, when actually they think very differently, just use the same terminology to describe their different ideas.

I, therefore, have taken it upon myself to understand the unity among various ideas which are seen as being opposed, and working out their relationship with each other, and how they can be inter-changed. I therefore use different terminologies over time, which to most people's minds, who interpret things purely based on pre-conceived notions of vague labels, would generally seem to be opposing. Yet one who reads for meaning can see the consistent message between the various terminologies, and can therefore understand the unity, or central point from which these concepts and terms stem.

yes, i get what you're saying [ do i?] but am still confused re what's your point/purpose,
what have you accomplished
or gained here?

if you haven't read Freud's "The Antithetical Meaning of Primal Words." you should
a general idea of the essay copied and pastied from here: languagescraps.blogspot.com...

An excerpt from my (Travis Low) reading response paper:

"...Taboo is something that interests me very much. The concept of taboo is mind boggling in that it alludes to something or someone that is unapproachable, forbidden, holy, unclean, sacred, dangerous, etc. This antithetical description or definition of the word ‘taboo’ made me think of one of Freud’s essays that I recently read called “The Antithetical Meaning of Primal Words,” wherein Freud examines ancient Egyptian words that have two different meanings which are opposed to one another. That is, single words that refer to two different states that are at odds with each other. For example, the Egyptian word for ‘light’ is the same as the Egyptian word for ‘dark’, the same goes for inside/outside, strong/weak, old/young, far/near, and so on. The single word refers to both states, or at least the presence of one state and the absence of its contrary state. Instead of having two words for each manifestation, one word describes the contradictory phenomena. If the concept is abstract, the specific manifestations can be shown in several ways; if written, a simple symbol or picture at the beginning or end of the word can distinguish between the two meanings, if spoken, special emphasis can be placed on the pronunciation of the word in a number of ways, illustrating the nature of the manifestation being referred to. (For example, the word standing for both ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ would be pronounced very powerfully and deeply if referring to ‘strong’, but would be pronounced very softly and delicately if referring to ‘weak’.) This is also true in many other languages. In Latin, for instance, the word ‘sacer’ means both ‘sacred’ and ‘accursed’, and ‘altus’ means both ‘high’ and ‘deep’. (This is all paraphrased from Freud’s essay “The Antithetical Meaning of Primal Words”) So, I would think that the word taboo, also having an antithetical meaning and essence to it, must have been developed in a similar way, where one word was placed upon the presence of two antithetical states, desires or impulses. Freud also points out early on in the reading that the word ‘taboo’ is an ancient/primal polynesian word.

Taboo is especially interesting being a phenomena that comes upon objects or people for social/cultural reasons and that the phenomena is charged with contradictory forces. Objects of taboo, as said above, are both holy and unclean, both sacred and forbidden, etc. If something is taboo it means that the thing or person of taboo has some kind of prohibition placed upon it, it is warned against, unapproachable. It is both desired and unwanted, it could bring both delight and sorrow.

google books version:
books.google.com.pr...=onepa ge&q=freud%20the%20antithetical%20meaning%20of%20primal%20words&f=false
Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid might also be of interest:

Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid (commonly GEB) is a 1979 book by Douglas Hofstadter, described by his publishing company as "a metaphorical fugue on minds and machines in the spirit of Lewis Carroll".[1]

On its surface, GEB examines logician Kurt Gödel, artist M. C. Escher and composer Johann Sebastian Bach, discussing common themes in their work and lives. At a deeper level, the book is an exposition of concepts fundamental to mathematics, symmetry, and intelligence.

Through illustration and analysis, the book discusses how self-reference and formal rules allow systems to acquire meaning despite being made of "meaningless" elements. It also discusses what it means to communicate, how knowledge can be represented and stored, the methods and limitations of symbolic representation, and even the fundamental notion of "meaning" itself.

In response to confusion over the book's theme, Hofstadter has emphasized that GEB is not about mathematics, art, and music but rather about how cognition and thinking emerge from well-hidden neurological mechanisms. In the book, he presents an analogy about how the individual neurons of the brain coordinate to create a unified sense of a coherent mind by comparing it to the social organization displayed in a colony of ants.[2][3]

en.wikipedia.org...
pdf can be googled quite easily
"if you catch my drift"

i note that you place quotes on "opposite things" yes, many dualisms/dichotomies were actually single until they were or became divided.

and many a xtian fundamentalist would gladly break bread with his muslim "counterpart" were it not for their "opposing religions".

which brings us back to the OP and a little problem with it
[other than your, shall we say, creative use of language]

materialism can't completely map out reality

or put in terms of the OP
what makes you think that each and every point/aspect/thing of non-physical reality has a correspondingpoint/aspect/thing
in physical reality?

Originally posted by TheSubversiveOne

No need to be upset sir. And please, hold your cards closer to your chest, I'm not interested in reading your badly punctuated dogma or your childhood.

then why did you presume to address me?
also this is teh interwebs capitalization not required
cards? you think we're playing a game
upset? rofl what ever gave you such an idea

You do have a strong imagination, I'll give you that. I can tell by your ability to abstract everything. You've even naively attempted to quantify me through labels and such. It's futile. You can keep swinging at that image of me all you want, but you're hitting nothing but air. I am just words on a screen, but you see me as something more: a positivist-reductionist, a materialist liken to genocidal dictators such as Mao and Stalin. Well of course I am. I'm anything you wish me to be.

"imagination is more important than knowledge" -albert einstein
interesting hall of mirrors effect you've created there

you accuse me of something while doing it yourself


that last bit even sounds vaguely "dirty" lol

you've quite a way with words yourself.

regarding your quantification of my person
i remain in the shadows as far as your concerned

Nonetheless, out of respect for the OP and the thread topic I had wished to debate, I must end our digression. I apologize for the time we've both wasted, and I'm glad you have everything figured out.

oh dont go away mad now, the thread is picking up and i'm the verge of flagging myself
[shhh don't tell him, though]

as for wasted time speak for yourself, i'm good

also, as for respect for the op you seem to not be reading his posts
as op and i are having a nice tete-a-tete here
tea and crumpets is all that's missing

and this is not the debating sub-forum
it's philosophy and metaphysics
also debating is useless as an instrument for determining truth
there's the matter of sophistry to consider

from the shadows,

DerepentLEstranger

to call something physical or non-physical is just your perception of reality through the mind of a human. there is no physical or non-physical just as there is no good and evil or time and space.these are just different parts of a spectrum.

So to try and paraphrase, what your saying in other words is that was some really good ffffffffffffphhhhhhh ahhhhhh

just because you are color-blind dose not mean colors don't exist you don't perceive them because you have a limited perception of the spectrum.

This makes a lot of sense to me. The higher dimensions are still physical but they are less dense, so thought frequencies may manifest faster on higher dimensions, and maybe it will be like energy - that which we call "the spirit world" here

reply to post by arpgme


yeah, cool avatar.

reply to post by St Udio


i couldnt agree more. the only reality is duality.

reply to post by snakebit


duality is human nature. but it is not a reality. it is only a way to perceive reality.

reply to post by asher


you say tomayto, i say tomato.

black and white, good and evil, female and male, dog and cat. reality. duality

i do also agree that duality is human nature.

So...

You say "This is the way things are!" with nary a fact presented to back up your statement, and we're all supposed to just believe it because you said so?

Man, were you born at the wrong time. You'd have been a great help in writing and editing the Bible.

Although i believe in nothing that has not been proven for facts by science, i have to disagree with that statement.
If there is indeed more than 3 dimensions we have absolutely no way of knowing what laws apply to them.