Anyone want to take a shot at these questions?

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by masta12d


a red crayon is every color but red, as is the fact that our eye flip and rotate everything we see. Perhaps it's really a fact your walking on the ceiling.


We see red because of the sun and the light we use. Hold that crayon under different colored lights and it won't be red anymore.


True enough but then we are filtering again aren't we?




posted on Mar, 25 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I get what your saying. But your responses are from your perceptions and your understanding of those perceptions. If we only exist in a fraction of the known universe, and again, not in the meaning of physical space, but in all densities. Then wouldn't it stand to reason our current perception of reality is fundamentally flawed? Kinda like looking at a 1000 piece jigsaw and only having one piece. And wouldn't you know it, the damn thing is all blue. *sigh* perhaps it's a skyline or an ocean? Perhaps just a piece of a giants blue sweater.

Furthermore, if we were born with the ability to see in all wavelengths, to hear in all and to be in all and it was in fact for our survival. I don't know perhaps because we are all Gods for example. And we had to fight for our existence so protecting ourselves required the use of all wave lengths. In that context, wouldn't we be able to interact in the hodgepodge of sensory override?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by straddlebug
reply to post by masta12d
 


What if time is really a static state - does not flow. There is not future, past, or present.


There is no past, nor is there a future; however, there is a present. You and I exist in it.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 02:27 AM
link   
reply to post by masta12d
 


Dear masta 12d,

If I can accurately perceive 1/1000th of what is, does it mean my perception is wrong. Are you assuming that we must know everything, to know anything?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
nice thread!



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Angle
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


The young child would see information about the duck which is no information, yet is.


The child is emptiness filled with what is. It sees what is and hears what is.
As it grows it gets full of ideas.
BINGO...!! I think you have it.

Just a guess, but I'd bet the OP is adolescent to young twenties, and filled with confusion brought on by a 'search' for an alternate reality, when our reality is right in front of our faces.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by masta12d
 


Dear masta 12d,

If I can accurately perceive 1/1000th of what is, does it mean my perception is wrong. Are you assuming that we must know everything, to know anything?


ANOTHER 'BINGO' ....right you are..!



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by masta12d
 


Dear masta 12d,

If I can accurately perceive 1/1000th of what is, does it mean my perception is wrong. Are you assuming that we must know everything, to know anything?


Of course not. I was getting at context here. If you have just one piece of a grand puzzle and all you see is blue. You need to understand in what context is this puzzle piece blue.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Plotus

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by Angle
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


The young child would see information about the duck which is no information, yet is.


The child is emptiness filled with what is. It sees what is and hears what is.
As it grows it gets full of ideas.
BINGO...!! I think you have it.

Just a guess, but I'd bet the OP is adolescent to young twenties, and filled with confusion brought on by a 'search' for an alternate reality, when our reality is right in front of our faces.


And you would be wrong. Which was nice to see how you make assumptions of my age from very little context. Did you assume that from just this thread or have you read some of my older posts.

Also, seeing how I have one of the oldest profiles on ATS wouldn't it stand to reason that I was probably closer to adolescence at the time of creation of my profile? You'd be closer but still wrong.

I am sorry that my thread makes you feel dumbed down. Although I do find myself going back to my thoughts as a child before my reality was altered by schools telling me what everything WAS even though many time they have been proven to be wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by masta12d


Also, seeing how I have one of the oldest profiles on ATS wouldn't it stand to reason that I was probably closer to adolescence at the time of creation of my profile?
 


No offence, Masta, but as you are a long term member,

hasn't all this been discussed many times on ATS?

My point is that these seem like banal, adolescent questions.

The eye assigns colour to a range of light wavelengths

that may not correspond with the colour of the wavelength itself.

We have cones in the eye which detect red, green, and yellow.


But we only detect light and colour with our eyes. (Imagine a camera lens and a CCD chip)

What we percieve is processed by our brains in a similar way to how computers process Holograms.

The brain learns which colours are which and uses this information to process visual information,

as it does with acoustic and sensory information.

Only smells are transported directly to the brain, otherwise its in a black, sealed room,

with no contact to the outside world except the electrical signals which it processes.

The world we see is made of light. How we see it depends on how the light reaches our eyes.



The sky is blue because blue frequency light is scattered by Nitrogen and oxygen molecules (Air) more than lower frequencies. Our eyes dont pick up indigo or violet very well unless it is directed, so the sky looks like a mixture of all light frequencies (white) and Blue, so it's Light blue.

The sun is yellow because yellow is the median colour in our visible light spectrum. It looks red when the sun is low, as light is scattered more and more by dust and water vapour in the lower atmosphere (air).

The tomato looks red, because the pigment "lycopene" absorbs green and blue frequencies, but reflects red light..

A leaf is green because "chlorophyll" absorbs red and blue frequencies and reflects green light.

Your favorite crayon is red because the dye in the crayon absorbs or scatters all other frequencies of light.

It is red because light (in the red bit of the spectrum of visible light) is reflected towards your eyes

Change the colour of the light source and you change the colour of the Crayon.

Every one percieves the world around them from inside a black box of sensory information.

The whole world is inside your head, an interactive personal holographic reality.

Everyones eyes have different amounts of each type of cone receptor, yet everyone, given similar circumstances percieves the world of colour exactly the same. You "see" with your brain, not with your eyes.

You see with your brain

That's why your favorite Crayon is Red.




Peace.



edit on 26/3/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: never ruin an apology with an excuse



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by masta12d
 



What if we could see at all wavelengths? But not the ability to switch, simply forced to view the world in infa-red, gamma, etc etc. would we be able to navigate the earth like this or would everything just be a wall of light that you couldn't see anything? Much like staring at the sun from 5 feet away.



What if you heard all sound waves at all levels? Why are we limited to such a small fraction of sound waves?


Both of these can be understood quite easily. the reason we don't see all wavelengths with our eyes is that they would become very painful. The pain would be so excruciating that you would keep your eyes closed. so the eye was made to see only a certain range as to protect the body and thereby let you live naturally. otherwise you cannot have your eyes open and thereby not be able to function normally.

The same with hearing if you were to hear all sound waves your ears would become so over whelmed that you would be in excruciating pain so they are made to hear only a certain range of sound.

When your eyes or your ears are hit with wavelengths outside their normal range they will cause you great pain causing your to close your eyes and stop your ears. You can not live long with eyes closed and ears stopped and in such pain.

It would take a lot longer than a few hundred million years to mutate the eyes and ears into their current state for human beings or other animals and insects therefore that leaves us with only one conclusion. Man and all living creatures were made not evolved.

edit on 26-3-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by masta12d
 


Dear masta 12d,

If I can accurately perceive 1/1000th of what is, does it mean my perception is wrong. Are you assuming that we must know everything, to know anything?


I am sure we must know somethings if we are to understand anything.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
my 2 cents...it's all about evolution...we humans have evolved to live on our world. we recognize some "senses" and discarded others, for our immediate survivial. if you cannot hear a predator and through that sound know how to protect yourself, all the other senses are useless. if you can see only infrared, poisonous plants, and cold blooded animals would kill you...etc.... we have these senses, because those have allowed our species to survive, nothing more.
edit on 26-3-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Theflyingweldsman
 


That was an extremely cool answer.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
reply to post by masta12d
therefore that leaves us with only one conclusion. Man and all living creatures were made not evolved.

 


That sounds like graminoids do after passing through 4 ruminant stomach chambers.

Which evolved to process cellulose into a form of sugar that can be used to respire, build amino acids,etc.

It takes a sybiosis of many varied organisms to build a Human or a cow.

Everything is God, evolving and building himself in every plank-moment anew.

Welcome to creation,

Open your eyes.

Peace.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 
Thank you.

It's funny, "Jimmy" and "Hendrix" posted one after another.

Rock'n'Roll.


edit on 26/3/2013 by Theflyingweldsman because: Nice.



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by masta12d
 


what if all your questions could be answered perfectly?...... What then?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by emeris
 


Originally posted by emeris
reply to post by masta12d
 


what if all your questions could be answered perfectly?...... What then?



Well, then THAT would take us right back to the start!


(Thanks, Afterinfinity)

Either we have the perfect answers, but we don't know the right questions,



Or we have the perfect questions, but do we have the right answers?



Who knows?



And what would we do if we did?



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Theflyingweldsman
reply to post by emeris
 


Originally posted by emeris
reply to post by masta12d
 


what if all your questions could be answered perfectly?...... What then?



Well, then THAT would take us right back to the start!


(Thanks, Afterinfinity)

Either we have the perfect answers, but we don't know the right questions,



Or we have the perfect questions, but do we have the right answers?



Who knows?



And what would we do if we did?


Jackpot! This is actually more in line with what I am trying to relate, in hindsight in my apparent laymen way. That just because you can explain it, it seems that it is only partially explained.

But if we had the full scope of all that is around us and is us AND we were capable of discerning what we can see, hear and touch around us that we can't otherwise in this existence, what would it look like? Not through sight so much but even through the minds eye because I'd imagine if we were all seeing there wouldn't even be a need for our eyes.
edit on 26-3-2013 by masta12d because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by emeris
reply to post by masta12d
 


what if all your questions could be answered perfectly?...... What then?





Then I would be able to create my portrait.





top topics
 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum