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.

 

Another Philosophy - Nuncamorism (God is Now-Love, The Love of The Present Moment)

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I think the only way to really come to any conclusion on this matter would be to stick to things that we know to be at least "Theoretically" "likely". And It's my undertsanding that past time travel is NOT likely. Does anyone know otherwise or have any links on this subject?




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


There are some theories that says there is no time, and when you time-travel, you are actually going to a parallel universe which reflects the time period that you wish to be in. As you make changes in the past you jump to a parallel reality which reflects that.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


In Buddhism we touch on the subject of "Subjective reality" quite often. But I never have been able to wrap my head around the idea of it completely. Because, If our reality was completely subjective, then how do we all generally perceive the same concreteness of this reality?

Unless of course, everything absolutley subjective and you're all figments of my imagination. If that were true then reality would be so mindblowingly incomprehensible to me that I think I'd just have to roll over and die. Cause you guys seem pretty real to me. You seem to all walk and talk and think for yourselves... How could you be an "extension" of my psyche and/or vice versa?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


I'm not claiming that all of reality is subjective, but even if it were, that would not mean that everyone is is fake. Maybe your create your own reality entirely, and anyone else in your life just happen to be creating similar things.

Maybe this is how it works. All of us is creating these physical laws, or maybe it ALL is an illusion including yourself and there is only one mind (God) playing all roles.

Not saying I believe any, just a possibility.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by arpgme
 


In Buddhism we touch on the subject of "Subjective reality" quite often. But I never have been able to wrap my head around the idea of it completely. Because, If our reality was completely subjective, then how do we all generally perceive the same concreteness of this reality?

Unless of course, everything absolutley subjective and you're all figments of my imagination. If that were true then reality would be so mindblowingly incomprehensible to me that I think I'd just have to roll over and die. Cause you guys seem pretty real to me. You seem to all walk and talk and think for yourselves... How could you be an "extension" of my psyche and/or vice versa?


You are raising some good questions. In fact, this entire thread has been enjoyable to read. I think, though, that we need to be careful of the concepts we are using and how we are using them. As long as we take the concept of "you" or "I" to be intrinsically real/existent, than everything is purely subjective. In fact, it may be said that there are 7 billion realities on earth because each person experiences things differently. Now, as socially conditioned beings with similar biological anatomy/neural structure, it is quite easy to agree upon certain concepts. We can agree that the color "red" is "red" because our optical anatomy is similar and we were all taught that this experience is "red". We can agree that the pot is "hot" because, again, our anatomy is similar and so we experience heat very similarly and have been taught this experience is called "heat" or "hot".

But none of this is proof of an objective reality. Even science, which prides itself on inquiring into objective reality, stands solely upon common conditioning, which is why we have to go through years of school to learn all the concepts and terminology before we are considered "scientists". It is all about conceptual agreements in relation to similar (but not identical) experiences, but nonetheless it is all subjective. We may call it "objective" because we agree upon concepts due to our conditioning and similar anatomy, but the supposed person can never experience anything truly objective. It is all subjective experience that is labeled as objective when enough people agree upon its existence.

Now, on the other hand, if we take the concept of "you" or "I" to be mere conceptual designations for spacial reference points, done for communication purposes, but have no real intrinsic reality/existence to them, then everything is objective. Then there is nothing but one reality (or as the Buddha called it, Absolute Reality). Then the body/brain is not experiencing reality (as a separate object) but is in fact part of reality itself, a manifestation of reality as reality. And since the body/brain is not experiencing reality, rather is reality, then what we might call "objective reality" still cannot be spoken of or conceptualized because there is no separate entity. If we establish the belief of a separate entity ("I" or "you" or "we"), in order to talk about this "objective reality", then everything is subjective again. Which is why people like the Buddha and Lao Tzu and others have said this reality (the Tao or Absolute) cannot be spoken of.

So, in short, objective reality exists. In fact, it is all that exists. Even this supposed "subjective reality" is objective reality. And this is because there is no absolute boundaries or divisions within anything (there is no "I" or "You" or "that" and "this"), all is all. But the minute there is the conceptualization of anything, then everything is subjective because it is being conceptualized from a specific spatial reference point. So in this sense, there is no such thing as "objective reality", it only is theorized to be true through philosophical inquiry such as I am doing right now. But on that note, so too is "subjective reality" just theorized to be true through philosophical inquiry.

Hope I didn't confuse anyone.


edit on 12-8-2012 by openlocks because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 



When we say "this is red" we don't know if we are actually seeing the same color. For all we know, "red" may look "blue" to someone else but we would never know because now they associate those colors with opposites words.

If that was confusing, here is what I'm saying...

Imagine a child sees "blue" where we see "red", because we are teaching them the language, we would call red (which looks blue to them) "red" and they'll go their whole life not knowing and people will never notice because to then red actually does look blue to them and blue looks red to them.

We can never know for sure if we are seeing the same thing...

In an African Language where there are fewer colors, two shades of almost the same type of Green looks completely different to them whereas we could not really see the difference.

To their language with fewer colors, water is 'white' and the sky is 'black'.




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by openlocks
 




You totally confused me. Star for you.... Heh

No but really though..I cut a pasted that into word so I can read it over and over again to ponder it's implications. For the most part I understand..



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by foodstamp
 


Hee hee... it's good to be confused though. It means we are looking into the unknown, which is always fresh and new. If you have any questions just hit me up.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


Side Note: Our philosophies are so crazy similar it is almost scary, arpgme.

I am one of those people who believe that time does not exist and that there is only the now. I do believe a form of time travel is possible, but it would take so much energy and computing power for it to happen that it would simply be ridiculous. Essentially it would be forcing all change in matter to take a backwards path and work in reverse. It isn't very practical or useful, but there you go....

Anyway, back on topic.

I believe there is only the now, the idea of past and future are only that, ideas. They are concepts of the human mind that need to exist for us to make sense of our reality so we can survive as biologically evolved beings that depend on their own survival to reproduce. We need to make sense of the world around us in order to survive, so we make these perceptions of that world to make the job easier.


To touch on the topic of perception of reality, we all do have our own perceptions. There truly is no telling if I see a fish as other people do. To me, a fish could look like what a cow looks like to another. The mind is a crazy thing and can perceive things drastically different than they are if it is so inclined. This has impact on how we interact with the world though as long as those perceptions do not interfere with basic survival. If they do, then they will be weeded out of genetics by natural selection.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join