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.

 

There Is No Such Thing As Non-Physical Reality!

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by snakebit
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.


I don't agree that human nature should be reduced to such dichotomy. The complexity of the human nature is way more complex than saying one can do good only if he is able to do evil.




posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
.

Everything is Energy .

.. here is what a lot of people in this thread dont get .



And that means Consciousness which we experience first hand is a quality an essential character of the Universe ..

Everything is Consciousness Driven .

Reality is a perspective of Consciousness based on the variables from the perspective of the observer.. the self ...


.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by R0CR13
.

Everything is Energy .

.. here is what a lot of people in this thread dont get .



And that means Consciousness which we experience first hand is a quality an essential character of the Universe ..

Everything is Consciousness Driven .

Reality is a perspective of Consciousness based on the variables from the perspective of the observer.. the self ...


.


I fail to see how consciousness is an "essential" character of the Universe. A mere byproduct maybe.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by CompisMentis
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.


This precisely.

I just want to point out and reiterate the fact that there can be no knowledge *whatsoever* of "non-physical" or "undetectable" or "transcendent" aspects of reality- by their very definition.

Existence is- and will only ever be- that which can be detected and measured. There is no other viable standard for objective truth. Even if something existed which was beyond our current sensual/scientific detection, it would be synonymous entirely with "the unknown". You cannot say with any certain knowledge that it is a "spiritual realm" or "heaven" or "higher consciousness" or ANYTHING!
If it is objectively undetectable, immeasurable, and unverifiable, then it is nonexistent or unknown for all intents and purposes.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Reasonous
 


Exactly the sort of thing that coppertops trapped in The Matrix would say.

Those of us who have been outside of The Matrix, metaphorically speaking, KNOW how much more there is than the measureable. Sorry but I'm not going to bow to your altar of the objective.


edit on 31-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 



Those of you that have been outside of the physical world and 3rd dimension amuse me. How is it that only a certain minority visits the outer world and talks about it and not a single scientific.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by Reasonous
 


Exactly the sort of thing that coppertops trapped in The Matrix would say.

Those of us who have been outside of The Matrix, metaphorically speaking, KNOW how much more there is than the measureable. Sorry but I'm not going to bow to your altar of the objective.


edit on 31-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


"More than" is itself, a measurement. To have "more than" the measureable is a totally bizarre and contradictory statement.

Also, if you know something that I don't, then help me to understand rather than just saying I'm wrong?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
.

reply to post by CompisMentis
 


look up Logic and Deduction .. learn it then apply it ..

The key to your mind set is in your own words

"I fail to see "

You nailed it ...but you knew that .

.

.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by R0CR13
.

reply to post by CompisMentis
 


look up Logic and Deduction .. learn it then apply it ..

The key to your mind set is in your own words

"I fail to see "

You nailed it ...but you knew that .

.

.


You are right. I should have said : Consciousness is a by product of the universe.
See cosmological evolution and tell me where consciousness is needed.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CompisMentis
reply to post by BlueMule
 



Those of you that have been outside of the physical world and 3rd dimension amuse me. How is it that only a certain minority visits the outer world...


Probably because, as Sam Harris said, you would have to "build your own telescope" so to speak.


But the problem with a contemplative claim of this sort is that you can't borrow someone else's contemplative tools to test it. The problem is that to test such a claim—indeed, to even appreciate how distracted we tend to be in the first place, we have to build our own contemplative tools. Imagine where astronomy would be if everyone had to build his own telescope before he could even begin to see if astronomy was a legitimate enterprise. It wouldn't make the sky any less worthy of investigation, but it would make it immensely more difficult for us to establish astronomy as a science.

To judge the empirical claims of contemplatives, you have to build your own telescope. [...] And it is not work that our culture knows much about.


The Problem with Atheism


and talks about it and not a single scientific.


Talks about it? Pfft. Words blow. Words are for cowards and nit-pickers and fools.

"That Oneness is on the other side of descriptions and states. Nothing but duality enters speech's playing-field."

-Rumi


edit on 31-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by R0CR13
 


An "essential" quality is one that must be present in order for the object to maintain it's identity as that object.

It may be essential for humans to have consciousness, but not the universe. What about the time shortly after the Big Bang when the fundamental particles that make consciousness possible didn't even exist?

For consciousness to be "essential" to the universe, there could not have been any point in time when consciousness did not exist- which is clearly false. The organisms required for consciousness can only come into existence through a process of evolution toward from simple things to complex.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule


Talks about it? Pfft. Words blow. Words are for cowards and nit-pickers and fools.


edit on 31-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


IF you could somehow tell me that without using language then I will consider the argument.

Until then you might want to consider that you are using words to tell everybody how much they suck. It's not very convincing.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reasonous
reply to post by R0CR13
 


An "essential" quality is one that must be present in order for the object to maintain it's identity as that object.

It may be essential for humans to have consciousness, but not the universe. What about the time shortly after the Big Bang when the fundamental particles that make consciousness possible didn't even exist?

For consciousness to be "essential" to the universe, there could not have been any point in time when consciousness did not exist- which is clearly false. The organisms required for consciousness can only come into existence through a process of evolution toward from simple things to complex.


Beware he might tell you that quark gluon plasma had consciousness.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reasonous

Originally posted by BlueMule


Talks about it? Pfft. Words blow. Words are for cowards and nit-pickers and fools.


edit on 31-7-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)


IF you could somehow tell me that without using language then I will consider the argument.

Until then you might want to consider that you are using words to tell everybody how much they suck. It's not very convincing.


Here is your first star. Very well said.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheJourney
You heard it right! I am sorry to disappoint all you spiritual people out there. Everything is physical! There is no such thing as transcendence of physicality. What we call spiritual existence, or higher planes of reality, are simply more complex, and more subtle, levels of physical reality.


Nice sales speech.


Originally posted by TheJourney
Your thoughts, your dreams, are physical phenomena. I cannot claim to accurately describe the exact mechanisms behind the physical reality of thoughts and dreams. Let me just propose one possible degree of extreme subtlety, to help you conceptualize. Suppose that thoughts, and mental images such as those in dreams, create a disturbance at the atomic level. As you think things, and your emotion changes, there are changes to your atomic configuration. You can see how at least this level of change must occur.


Atomic level disturbance..got it.


Originally posted by TheJourney
If you consider that, not to mention changes at a neural level, which is a much larger scale, then let us think of the implications. Your conceptualization of this is probably under the particle interpretation of reality, yet there is a wave-particle duality to take into account. Physical reality is really both wave and particle, depending on how you look at it.


The way to look at it being...scale?


Originally posted by TheJourney
If we consider the alteration at the atomic level previously spoken of in wave-form, the implications become more clear. ....


Aren't atoms a bit too big to travel in wave forms? Hence, leaving your "implications" invalid?
I'm sorry, but to me it sounds like you read a bit about the double-slit experiment, lit one up and let the mind wander. :-)

If that's not the case and my atoms actually do vibrate/wave out of my body...Let me know how that works :-)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJourney
 


Where is your proof. To say something doesn't exist you also need proof just as those who say something positively exists need proof. Stay neutral and keep your opinions to yourself and you need no proof at all. Mankind is far from understanding much of reality. Science is proven wrong everyday.

Your opening statement invalidates all the truths that may be in the following explanation.
edit on 31-7-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   
.

reply to post by CompisMentis
 


Wow ..right over your head .

review the Vid then reevaluate your words .

.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by TheJourney
 


Where is your proof. To say something doesn't exist you also need proof just as those who say something positively exists need proof. Stay neutral and keep your opinions to yourself and you need no proof at all. Mankind is far from understanding much of reality. Science is proven wrong everyday.


You need proof to say that something exists. No proof is required when saying something does not exist. If someone wants to say that something known to not exist exists, then it is up to him to bring proof forward. Science is proven wrong sometimes yes, that is what science is, the true way to seek the truth.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Most of the talk here reminds me of existential crisis. Much of it oriented towards religious and spiritual matters. You see, people instinctively want to deny physical reality. They want to deny death, suffering, evolution, unfairness, and other desolate miserable things. Evolution actually created this instinct because it serves to keep people reproducing and working and on the straight and narrow. Otherwise, people are lost in an existential fog where everything tangible loses its substance and their confidence falters. If they're alone, it only impacts them, but if they have family or close friends it can be disruptive. To prevent this from happening, there's a need to answer these questions without genuinely answering them. This is why we have religion and spiritualism and cults of transcendence. In a sense, it's a kind of mental masturbation where people invent non-physical realities and supernatural beings and afterlives to save themselves and others from the tribulations of existence. These inventions, once committed to, relax our existential anxieties without having to do the honest hard labor of answering them. The end result is people recover from existential queries much more rapidly, especially if they follow a pre-established religion or spiritualist philosophy.

All you really need to remember from this post is that religion and spiritualism are evolutionary mechanisms that quiet our mind, dull its existential pain, and create in us the illusion that our existential questions are resolved. It keeps us reproducing and preserves our species.

There's a logic to it, I think. We can't really know everything, given the circumstances we inhabit. Things are finite and mostly discrete. Examine any two people and there's a vast knowledge difference between the two. Just as there's finite money on the planet to process goods and services, there's also finite knowledge. The majority of our existential questions are unresolvable at the present time. With time we will answer some of them, but it's such a length of time that it exceeds many human lifetimes. So there cannot really be a genuine honest answer to these things. Thus, religion and spiritualism will always be present in our society to rush to our rescue.

Ideally, you're so consumed by your passions or work that none of this occurs to you.

Also reminds me of this... hey, intellectuals play this game too:

edit on 31-7-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reasonous

If it is objectively undetectable, immeasurable, and unverifiable, then it is nonexistent or unknown for all intents and purposes.


I'm going to suggest that most avenues of pursuit that ultimately lead to breakthroughs are determined by logical inference, and that the rigidity that this statement suggests is not how science, or much of anything else that actually achieves anything at all, operates. Speculation is one thing, and I agree that speculation should never be embraced as anything but what it is, but there is a lot that we can assume to exist that cannot be measured or objectively verified by what many people would consider reliable criteria. Like the impact that an invisible breeze has on a weather vane, we examine the effect that these imperceptible things have on what we can measure and verify.

One of those invisible, imperceptible things is information. In fact, physicists widely accept the notion that information (not recorded data, but the actual information itself) exists as physical, and that it directly affects the progressive development of material existence in ways that can be verified and even predicted. Residual information has been an established fact for quite a while now, and is known as the basis for "natural law" by way of the default "avenues of potential" that this form of information (acting as contextual precedence) establishes.

Not as widely acknowledged (yet) is the physical existence of the form of dynamic information that a material brain produces as it does what it's designed to do. Still, research is discovering irrefutable evidence that this unique form of information does exist and can (under the right conditions) actually reach out and affect the material realm in small ways that suggest that unlike residual information, this dynamic information is proactive and determinative in its physical nature. The field is still pretty young and not very well funded, but the findings do exist to support the notion that notions do physically exist.

I think that people get a bit confused concerning the term physical, and limit it to only describe material existence. I think that if we can fix that error, then a lot more headway can be made in our effort to figure out what does actually exist as physically real.




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join