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.

 

Is There a Fail-safe? A Way to Know If You're Wrong?

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheomExperience

If i tell you something you just have to believe it to be true for it to be true. No one else has to believe me or you but evidently you may compare what has been said with what the "average truth" from societies perspective is. Do you really believe the electrical impulses and chemicals released by your brain define facts as objective? Try this for an example. Do not read any news or information of that nature at all for two weeks and when people tell you things, objective things because they believe it what are you going to do. Believe them, search for the answers online or go experience what is said first hand for yourself.
Nothing can really be objective if things are always changing and people are dieing. This is probably going to sound stupid but if everyone died off tomorrow bar say 1000 people scattered over the planet, what is objective today by critical mass standards wont necessarily be the same tomorrow.
If i need a "fact" then i would need to prove that to someone. But that someone is not "me" so i would only need to present this to them to manipulate their state of mind to something i could control for my agenda.


You're referring to closed relative reality spheres that are immeasurably farther down the progressive development chain than where my focus is directed. Human perception is incapable of objectivity. It takes an objective reality structure for perception to ever emerge, but perception itself is inherently subjective. Nothing else that exists is inherently subjective but perception. Contextually malleable and dynamically fluid, but never subjective.
edit on 5/7/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster
 

The observer is a function of attention that notices change and then assumes that time exists as an actual reality. However, time is simply an idea of mind that does not actually exist in space. No object or body ever appears in time, only space. And yes, the mind's concept of time, based on it's observation of change, does not prove persistence because objects are not of time, and mind is only of time.


Quantum physics does not agree with you, since activity and change is quantized in definable units of now and then, which requires time for it to be so. Activity can involve space, but it doesn't have to. Decay doesn't involve a spacial trajectory, but it does involve an event trajectory, which is what time is integral to.


Anyway... You seem to be assuming that time is self-evident, and you are basing your concepts of the real and persistence on this notion. Is this correct?


They are based on the quantum unit of action, so yes.


Also, do you agree that only the mind is of time - and that the body and objects simply appear in space, and are not of time?


No. The body and objects exist as the result of time - specifically. The mind exists as a result of the brain (which means, I suppose, that it exists as a result of the body and objects). There is no primordial "mind" that simply "is". The mind persists beyond the existence span of the brain, but the brain is where the confluence occurs that brings the emergent system that is the mind into existence.


Do you think that the body actually experiences time? Do you think the mind appears in space? Or does only the mind experience the idea of time by noticing objects changing? These are important concepts to consider if one is wanting to understand what is actually real.


  • yes
  • no
  • Experience is just perception. It's a closed system that doesn't affect what exists beyond its own isolated confines. Not unless it causes the indivisible whole that it presents to respond actively within the larger contextual environment. The mind is capable of noticing objects changing, but it's also capable of noticing changes that are only generated perceptions, and not reflective of what exists beyond its own isolated confines. We call this delusion.



One has to release one's time-based mental notions to recognize reality. You seem to think you can "wrap your head" around reality. But even our "shared" reality cannot be objectified into an exact picture of what is real.


What's incidental can't be fully determined, but what's primordial and fundamental can be. What's incidental is fleeting and while it can have an impact, it's not the basis of more than direct ramification. What's fundamental isn't fleeting. It can't be.


Reality encompasses all possible points-of-view including no point-of-view. What does anything appear like from the standpoint of reality?

I bring all of this up because you are not going to wrap your head around reality because it is beyond any and all points-of-view.


I know this. That said, I also know that point-of-view isn't what I'm concerned with. What I'm concerned with is recognizing the objective reality requirements that lay the basis for all that does exist to ultimately come into existence. No point-of-view allowed.


Space-time is a paradox and clearly cannot be known objectively, because such objective knowing requires a knower, i.e., an inherently limited point-of-view. So no, I do not see there are any absolute grounds for proving that an "objective foundational real" exists. What does it look like?

Yes, Reality exists, but it is not objective.


Decouple space and time, and maybe you'll have a shot at understanding the foundational sub-structure that allows for what it is that exists to exist as it is. An objective foundational real is evident when you examine a cell from your own body. The organization is mind-bendingly strict and precise. Objective to a startling degree. Quantum physics has proven that all of physical reality is based on identical units (quanta) of activity, and that stinks of rigid objectivity. Hell, where else would you go for evidence of an objective reality? Your imagination? Seriously. The evidence for an objective basis is overwhelming.

You don't have to believe in it. Your mind is capable of rejecting anything and everything. It's 100% subjective, and free to experience whatever it's capable of experiencing. Nothing else is. If it could be subjective, reality wouldn't survive another instant. The intricate interdependence would be impossible to manage.
edit on 5/7/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I have a question, do you believe everything came from chaos (potential manifesting into reality) or chaos came from everything (everything exists in some realm and manifests here).

You said the root will be simple from which the complexity comes forth. What if there are fundamental rules about exists which doesn't change? They are not the "Beginning" they are just "eternal" sustaining existence itself? And you are right that this basis IS simple but it is not the "beginning" of anything just the platform holding all information (physical or non-physical, so-called: past-present-and all of future)?

What if this information realm you are talking about, existed BEFORE this material world? What if this material world is a reflection of that information realm just on a more solid physical level?

"So, if this is the case, how did that information come to exist?"

What if this realm is chaotic and all information that ever could exist is contained within it (whether past, present, or future, or any other apparent variations) and what if we have full access to this "information realm" but we call it "imagination"?

Remember, before man invents anything, they first imagine it, and animals think/imagine eating food before going to find it.

This is just a thought, what do you think?
edit on 7-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 
Thank you for the thorough reply.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Decouple space and time, and maybe you'll have a shot at understanding the foundational sub-structure that allows for what it is that exists to exist as it is. An objective foundational real is evident when you examine a cell from your own body. The organization is mind-bendingly strict and precise. Objective to a startling degree.
Yes, I agree, that space and time, like mind and body, are actually not inseparable. This is why body and objects are only locate-able in space, and mind is only temporal-based and is not locate-able in space. The observer is always dealing with the past (or the future), as it cannot exist in present time. (I mispoke earlier when I forgot to use the word "present" when speaking of the observer function and time, in my prior post.)


Originally posted by NorEaster
Quantum physics has proven that all of physical reality is based on identical units (quanta) of activity, and that stinks of rigid objectivity. Hell, where else would you go for evidence of an objective reality? Your imagination? Seriously. The evidence for an objective basis is overwhelming.
How does this consistency found in the physical universe convince you that it is also objective? Maybe we are using the word objective differently, but "objective reality" implies to me there is a subject or a knower - which implies a point-of-view. Are you using the word "objective" differently?

Regardless, any theory of everything (or reality itself) necessarily must take into account everything - including the one making such theories. If this is the case, why use the word objective?

Also, I am surprised you are relying on quantum physics since you dismissed my earlier use of the Uncertainty Principle relative to measuring an elementary particle, the photon, to point to the paradoxical nature of our physical universe.

So are not your statements relative to quanta to support your objective notion of reality also necessarily based on quantum probabilities and possibilities, rather than actual reality itself? And with each point of view that is required to even make such measurements - because of probabilities and possibilities, won't such measurements yield a slightly different version of reality each time? That is, can you rely on probabilities and possibilities to fully define reality?

So once again, it seems to me, that this points to space-time as paradoxical, and that reality is not able to be known, i.e., it is unknowable.

edit on 7-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I have a question, do you believe everything came from chaos (potential manifesting into reality) or chaos came from everything (everything exists in some realm and manifests here).


True chaos doesn't exist. It can't. The fact that anything exists at all insists that it is inherently based on organization at its own structural level. Chaos is a complete absence of organization. Things can seem to be chaotic, but that's only a perception. What's actually true is that the point of perspective is too close to take in the entire organization that exists.


You said the root will be simple from which the complexity comes forth. What if there are fundamental rules about exists which doesn't change? They are not the "Beginning" they are just "eternal" sustaining existence itself? And you are right that this basis IS simple but it is not the "beginning" of anything just the platform holding all information (physical or non-physical, so-called: past-present-and all of future)?


The fundamental rules are based on success precedence. The only primordial imperative is Identity Survival, which is more primordial than organizational persistence. Identity Survival involves internal and relative context, and is fundamental to what's known as holon theory. It's what material existence is based on. It's also what establishes the association-isolation protocols that rule how information fact sets and dynamic information wholes manage all activity and create order out of what would otherwise be true chaos. It's the primordial pursuit of Identity Survival that forces the next quantum of "now" to replace the "now" that exists.


What if this information realm you are talking about, existed BEFORE this material world? What if this material world is a reflection of that information realm just on a more solid physical level?


It didn't, and it's not. Information emerges as a result of occurrence - activity-change-event - not the other way around. Information is inherently passive, responding to the event trajectory (THIS happened is a fact set that exists once THIS happens) Pretty simple.


"So, if this is the case, how did that information come to exist?"


An event/change/occurrence happens = the fact set that it happens emerges. It's emergence is an event/change/occurrence that is represented by a fact set that this emergence happened. Rinse-Repeat


What if this realm is chaotic and all information that ever could exist is contained within it (whether past, present, or future, or any other apparent variations) and what if we have full access to this "information realm" but we call it "imagination"?


Take some time to examine the activity within a single skin cell, and tell me what you think. Chaos isn't going to be the word that comes to mind.


Remember, before man invents anything, they first imagine it, and animals think/imagine eating food before going to find it.

This is just a thought, what do you think?


I think that human minds are an epitome achievement and are capable of amazing things. They aren't capable of bringing themselves into existence by imagining themselves into existence. Conscious awareness is extremely sophisticated. This means it's not primordial, nor is it an existential basis of anything except imagination and perception. There's no primordial version of consciousness. It's just not possible, given the way that physical existence (material and non-material) is clearly structured. For a primordial version of consciousness to be at the base of all that exists, every fundamental anchor would have to be in endless management and being managed by something that would require its own sub-structural maintenance effort to remain intact and functional. It would be, like I said, "turtles all the way down", and that's just not a reality based premise.
edit on 5/7/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108

reply to post by NorEaster
 
Thank you for the thorough reply.




Originally posted by NorEaster
Quantum physics has proven that all of physical reality is based on identical units (quanta) of activity, and that stinks of rigid objectivity. Hell, where else would you go for evidence of an objective reality? Your imagination? Seriously. The evidence for an objective basis is overwhelming.
How does this consistency found in the physical universe convince you that it is also objective? Maybe we are using the word objective differently, but "objective reality" implies to me there is a subject or a knower - which implies a point-of-view. Are you using the word "objective" differently?


I'm using it this way.

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.



Regardless, any theory of everything (or reality itself) necessarily must take into account everything - including the one making such theories. If this is the case, why use the word objective?


The perceiver exists as an objective aspect within a given reality confine. What the perceiver perceives exists as an isolated information set, even if it is based on subjective translation of what is perceived. It exists as objectively real, and it is taken into account. That said, it's contextually isolated and physically indivisible relative to everything else that also exists as objectively real. Of course, the technical specifics involved are a lot more complex than I'm presenting them here.


Also, I am surprised you are relying on quantum physics since you dismissed my earlier use of the Uncertainty Principle relative to measuring an elementary particle, the photon, to point to the paradoxical nature of our physical universe.


I dismissed the relevance of the property set of a proton (which isn't a particle) since the basis of physical reality isn't a proton, nor is it affected by the way that a proton acts or doesn't act. Quantum physics is testable and reliable. It's critical to properly understand if you're going to grasp the true primordial nature of physical reality. It's not everything, but you can't dismiss it. Still, you must properly interpret the indications and what they mean to the question at hand.


So are not your statements relative to quanta to support your objective notion of reality also necessarily based on quantum probabilities and possibilities, rather than actual reality itself?


No. The pseudo-science that's hitched its wagon to quantum physics is mostly irresponsible conjecture. Theoretical physics isn't physics. It's not science either. It's an odd parlor game that some folks get paid to play around with.


And with each point of view that is required to even make such measurements - because of probabilities and possibilities, won't such measurements yield a slightly different version of reality each time? That is, can you rely on probabilities and possibilities to fully define reality?


You can't, and that's the point of ignoring the Voodoo Priests of Quantum Theory. They're just guys trying to sell books and get paid to lecture. They're story tellers who took the chance that getting a degree would help them sell their stories. For some, it's paid off.


So once again, it seems to me, that this points to space-time as paradoxical, and that reality is not able to be known, i.e., it is unknowable.


It's knowable, but not from the specific approach that you've decided to take. That should tell you something, but so far it hasn't. Think about that. I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to show you something that you'd probably be stunned to realize.
edit on 5/7/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   
True physical reality is a quantum soup. Individual reality is manifested by the mind of the individual. Physical reality is constructed by the five senses. What makes individuals different is the addition of emotion to the mix. With this, my personal opinion perceives impulsiveness as wrong and thought before acting as right. Of course there have been studies, which show there is very little difference in the results of doing something on impulse and thinking about it first. When I refer to impulse, I mean spontaneity.
edit on 7-5-2013 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


You clearly have the healthiest approach to this stuff.


Man, I remember back before whatever this thing is that grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and ground my nose into this grindstone showed up. I was totally like you in enjoying the fun in wondering about things. I envy you.



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm using it this way.

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

So in the first part of this definition, how can something be known without a knower? Even if it is the product of some simple logical exercise, for something to be known, there must be a knower.

If you are referring to "objective" as being beyond any knower, then can we drop the word "objective" because it is redundant - one could just use the word reality, rather than objective reality. Or perhaps you are referring to reality itself as the perfect knower?


Originally posted by NorEaster
The perceiver exists as an objective aspect within a given reality confine. What the perceiver perceives exists as an isolated information set, even if it is based on subjective translation of what is perceived. It exists as objectively real, and it is taken into account. That said, it's contextually isolated and physically indivisible relative to everything else that also exists as objectively real. Of course, the technical specifics involved are a lot more complex than I'm presenting them here.
Yes, everything arises in reality - including the perceiver, the activity of perception, what is perceived, etc. And yes, all are physically indivisible with everything else. So can I assume that an attribute of your notion of objective reality is indivisibility?


Originally posted by NorEaster
I dismissed the relevance of the property set of a proton (which isn't a particle) since the basis of physical reality isn't a proton, nor is it affected by the way that a proton acts or doesn't act. Quantum physics is testable and reliable. It's critical to properly understand if you're going to grasp the true primordial nature of physical reality. It's not everything, but you can't dismiss it. Still, you must properly interpret the indications and what they mean to the question at hand.
I was actually saying photon, not proton. (I assume you made a typo?) The photon is considered an elementary "particle". From wikipedia: "Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties."

Also: "A photon is a single quantum of light, and is referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom orbital (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general."

I said earlier:

So are not your statements relative to quanta to support your objective notion of reality also necessarily based on quantum probabilities and possibilities, rather than actual reality itself?


You replied:

Originally posted by NorEaster
No. The pseudo-science that's hitched its wagon to quantum physics is mostly irresponsible conjecture. Theoretical physics isn't physics. It's not science either. It's an odd parlor game that some folks get paid to play around with.
"No" is not quite enough proof there! Are you also dismissing the Uncertainty Principle with this statement? I wouldn't think so. So how are measurements of quanta able to get around what the Uncertainty Principle dictates relative to probability?


Originally posted by NorEaster
It's knowable, but not from the specific approach that you've decided to take. That should tell you something, but so far it hasn't. Think about that. I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to show you something that you'd probably be stunned to realize.
Are you saying reality, altogether, is knowable? We don't even know what a single thing actually IS. Can you say that you know altogether what even the simplest object IS? No one I know has ever said yes to this question. And so how can you know what reality altogether IS?

I understand you recognize that there is "consciousness" from other threads I have read of yours, but consciousness does not "know" reality as a separate objective something, as there is no separate knower knowing knowledge in consciousness.

I am always all ears to hear another well-considered view of reality, so try me and the rest of your readers here, if you please.

edit on 7-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by TheomExperience

If i tell you something you just have to believe it to be true for it to be true. No one else has to believe me or you but evidently you may compare what has been said with what the "average truth" from societies perspective is. Do you really believe the electrical impulses and chemicals released by your brain define facts as objective? Try this for an example. Do not read any news or information of that nature at all for two weeks and when people tell you things, objective things because they believe it what are you going to do. Believe them, search for the answers online or go experience what is said first hand for yourself.
Nothing can really be objective if things are always changing and people are dieing. This is probably going to sound stupid but if everyone died off tomorrow bar say 1000 people scattered over the planet, what is objective today by critical mass standards wont necessarily be the same tomorrow.
If i need a "fact" then i would need to prove that to someone. But that someone is not "me" so i would only need to present this to them to manipulate their state of mind to something i could control for my agenda.


You're referring to closed relative reality spheres that are immeasurably farther down the progressive development chain than where my focus is directed. Human perception is incapable of objectivity. It takes an objective reality structure for perception to ever emerge, but perception itself is inherently subjective. Nothing else that exists is inherently subjective but perception. Contextually malleable and dynamically fluid, but never subjective.
edit on 5/7/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


Things can be simple or they can be complicated. I can objectify anything i want its called judgement but it only applies to me so its not really objective to someone else. If i could say without a doubt a statement that would never change, would be observed by everything in existence not just homo-sapiens forever then i would call that objective. If all we have is our perception and perception is inherently subjective, then there is no wrong or no fail-safe required. There simply just "is" and we need to decide if we want to keep repeating cycles or move forward. If we stay in cycles then we will be perceiving mistakes or being wrong but since we have created them its just ignorance and not taking personal responsibility for our own projections
As Chuck Norris says "The only time i was wrong was when i thought i was wrong but i was actually right"



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
One of the most profound experiences I have had pertaining to reality is a dream-within-a-dream sequence, only this dream had no less than seven awakenings within a single series.

I would "awake" from a dream, and everything would be normal. I would get up out of bed, and perform all my usual morning routines, even sharing the dream with somene else, only to suddenly "wake up" and realize that I was still within the dream. This kept happening six more times, and by the 4th or 5th time, I was really quite terrified that I was trapped in the dreamstate and could no longer find my way out.

Throughout all these awakenings within the dream, there was nothing which could distinguish the dream from remembered reality. I would only know (or assume) it had been a dream upon awakening from the dream.

The thing is, I have no definitive way of knowing if I ever really woke from the final dream. Maybe I am really still trapped in it?

The point I am trying to make is that, at best, we can have a consensus about what is reality, but how can we know with certainty, while our awareness is wholly absorbed in this consensual reality, that it is not, in fact, a dream or an illusion?



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


...because it all is...

A self-referential, feedback-loop, trip within a trip, self-designed in 'constructed from whirling atoms' architecture...fused with a frame by frame insertion/deletion of objects created by imaginations that are allowed to run wild (except if you're into S&M)...
Trying to wrap it all up in a 'one-size-fits-all' is a huge task...words do not describe its shifting edges (empty words and euphemisms)...the experience does...

Å99



posted on May, 7 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
My question is: "Is there a "right or "wrong"?"

Reality is all about perception. What I percieve to be truth, may not & WILL not, be the same as the person that stands right next to me. Just as my right eye does not percieve what the left eye signals to the brain.

This is a 3d dimension we are in. And, every one of us percieves thier own 3d reality.

Quick test. Close one eye & look at your surroundings. Now, close the other & look at your surroundings. You will find that what you are percieving is 2 very diffrently placed images. The 3rd dimension is the brain that puts them together. Now, multiply those images with the 360 degrees that exist all the way around you, multiplied by the images that exist 360 degrees around that.

I believe we feel the test of wrong or right, when we percieve one of the multi facets of self that digs into thy gut. Whether it be the "hey.... been here, done that, & it still hurts (or may be elating....).

It's all about perception & yours, is yours alone.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoonSage
My question is: "Is there a "right or "wrong"?"

Reality is all about perception. What I percieve to be truth, may not & WILL not, be the same as the person that stands right next to me. Just as my right eye does not percieve what the left eye signals to the brain.

This is a 3d dimension we are in. And, every one of us percieves thier own 3d reality.

Quick test. Close one eye & look at your surroundings. Now, close the other & look at your surroundings. You will find that what you are percieving is 2 very diffrently placed images. The 3rd dimension is the brain that puts them together. Now, multiply those images with the 360 degrees that exist all the way around you, multiplied by the images that exist 360 degrees around that.

I believe we feel the test of wrong or right, when we percieve one of the multi facets of self that digs into thy gut. Whether it be the "hey.... been here, done that, & it still hurts (or may be elating....).

It's all about perception & yours, is yours alone.


If this were true, then what would have been real before you existed to perceive it? Someone else's perception? I don't believe so, since you came into existence in spite of no one perceiving you into existence.

Why do people insist that they are responsible for an entire universe of reality? I know that it's a popular idea here on this board, but it doesn't make sense. It completely misses the point that the perceiving mind has to exist itself before it can perceive the whole of reality into existence. And that means that reality can't be created by perception, since the perceiving mind must already exist as real to be capable of perception. You end up running out of "perceivers" pretty quick if you insist that each perceiving mind is launched into existence by some other perceiving mind. You end up inventing God.

It doesn't work.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by MoonSage
My question is: "Is there a "right or "wrong"?"

Reality is all about perception. What I percieve to be truth, may not & WILL not, be the same as the person that stands right next to me. Just as my right eye does not percieve what the left eye signals to the brain.

This is a 3d dimension we are in. And, every one of us percieves thier own 3d reality.

Quick test. Close one eye & look at your surroundings. Now, close the other & look at your surroundings. You will find that what you are percieving is 2 very diffrently placed images. The 3rd dimension is the brain that puts them together. Now, multiply those images with the 360 degrees that exist all the way around you, multiplied by the images that exist 360 degrees around that.

I believe we feel the test of wrong or right, when we percieve one of the multi facets of self that digs into thy gut. Whether it be the "hey.... been here, done that, & it still hurts (or may be elating....).

It's all about perception & yours, is yours alone.


If this were true, then what would have been real before you existed to perceive it? Someone else's perception? I don't believe so, since you came into existence in spite of no one perceiving you into existence.

Why do people insist that they are responsible for an entire universe of reality? I know that it's a popular idea here on this board, but it doesn't make sense. It completely misses the point that the perceiving mind has to exist itself before it can perceive the whole of reality into existence. And that means that reality can't be created by perception, since the perceiving mind must already exist as real to be capable of perception. You end up running out of "perceivers" pretty quick if you insist that each perceiving mind is launched into existence by some other perceiving mind. You end up inventing God.

It doesn't work.


Looks like you might be onto something there...

Å99
edit on 8-5-2013 by akushla99 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheomExperience

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by TheomExperience

If i tell you something you just have to believe it to be true for it to be true. No one else has to believe me or you but evidently you may compare what has been said with what the "average truth" from societies perspective is. Do you really believe the electrical impulses and chemicals released by your brain define facts as objective? Try this for an example. Do not read any news or information of that nature at all for two weeks and when people tell you things, objective things because they believe it what are you going to do. Believe them, search for the answers online or go experience what is said first hand for yourself.
Nothing can really be objective if things are always changing and people are dieing. This is probably going to sound stupid but if everyone died off tomorrow bar say 1000 people scattered over the planet, what is objective today by critical mass standards wont necessarily be the same tomorrow.
If i need a "fact" then i would need to prove that to someone. But that someone is not "me" so i would only need to present this to them to manipulate their state of mind to something i could control for my agenda.


You're referring to closed relative reality spheres that are immeasurably farther down the progressive development chain than where my focus is directed. Human perception is incapable of objectivity. It takes an objective reality structure for perception to ever emerge, but perception itself is inherently subjective. Nothing else that exists is inherently subjective but perception. Contextually malleable and dynamically fluid, but never subjective.
edit on 5/7/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


Things can be simple or they can be complicated. I can objectify anything i want its called judgement but it only applies to me so its not really objective to someone else. If i could say without a doubt a statement that would never change, would be observed by everything in existence not just homo-sapiens forever then i would call that objective. If all we have is our perception and perception is inherently subjective, then there is no wrong or no fail-safe required. There simply just "is" and we need to decide if we want to keep repeating cycles or move forward. If we stay in cycles then we will be perceiving mistakes or being wrong but since we have created them its just ignorance and not taking personal responsibility for our own projections
As Chuck Norris says "The only time i was wrong was when i thought i was wrong but i was actually right"


What's simple and uncomplicated is the fact that I'm not dealing with the perception-based "reality" that the human mind CREATES as it observes what does, in fact, exist to be perceived and observed by the human mind. I'm dealing with that reality that is being OBSERVED by the human mind and being translated into the subjective "reality" that you seem intent on depicting as the subject of most of this thread's exchange. The human mind itself exists as real, but it doesn't create the reality that it exists within. How can it? It'd be like your body creating the entire atomic structure that it consists of before it ever comes together as a structure of atoms. That doesn't even make sense.

You're stuck in the mindset that requires a creator god thingy for anything to exist, and that's just plain unworkable as a reality-based existence platform.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon
One of the most profound experiences I have had pertaining to reality is a dream-within-a-dream sequence, only this dream had no less than seven awakenings within a single series.

I would "awake" from a dream, and everything would be normal. I would get up out of bed, and perform all my usual morning routines, even sharing the dream with somene else, only to suddenly "wake up" and realize that I was still within the dream. This kept happening six more times, and by the 4th or 5th time, I was really quite terrified that I was trapped in the dreamstate and could no longer find my way out.

Throughout all these awakenings within the dream, there was nothing which could distinguish the dream from remembered reality. I would only know (or assume) it had been a dream upon awakening from the dream.

The thing is, I have no definitive way of knowing if I ever really woke from the final dream. Maybe I am really still trapped in it?

The point I am trying to make is that, at best, we can have a consensus about what is reality, but how can we know with certainty, while our awareness is wholly absorbed in this consensual reality, that it is not, in fact, a dream or an illusion?


And yet, to be capable of any dreamstate whatsoever requires that you already exist prior to that mind-created dreamscape that opens to yet another dreamscape. If your mind is creating these dreamscapes, then your mind is not of these dreamscapes. What exists can't be created by what it will then create once it has come into existence. The mind - if real - can't create the reality that contains it.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm using it this way.

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

So in the first part of this definition, how can something be known without a knower? Even if it is the product of some simple logical exercise, for something to be known, there must be a knower.


It can be known - meaning that it exists "independent" of perception translation. I won't play semantics. It's a waste of time.


Yes, everything arises in reality - including the perceiver, the activity of perception, what is perceived, etc. And yes, all are physically indivisible with everything else. So can I assume that an attribute of your notion of objective reality is indivisibility?


No. I was referring to the physical presence of a subjective translation that exists as an informational whole.


I was actually saying photon, not proton. (I assume you made a typo?) The photon is considered an elementary "particle". From wikipedia: "Photons, like all quantum objects, exhibit both wave-like and particle-like properties."


I meant photon. It's a typo. Sorry for any confusion.




So are not your statements relative to quanta to support your objective notion of reality also necessarily based on quantum probabilities and possibilities, rather than actual reality itself?

You replied:
Originally posted by NorEaster
No. The pseudo-science that's hitched its wagon to quantum physics is mostly irresponsible conjecture. Theoretical physics isn't physics. It's not science either. It's an odd parlor game that some folks get paid to play around with.
"No" is not quite enough proof there! Are you also dismissing the Uncertainty Principle with this statement? I wouldn't think so. So how are measurements of quanta able to get around what the Uncertainty Principle dictates relative to probability?


I wasn't required to provide proof. This is a discussion. Not a dissertation. The "Uncertainty Principle" doesn't pertain to an existential sub-structure. It pertains to the fact that a precise measurement involving position and momentum can't be simultaneously known. That's pretty obvious stuff, and has nothing at all to do with the presence of a physical reality substructure that can be known. It's a statement that says "If you want the precise position of a particle at a precise instant within its ongoing trajectory, then I can give that to you, but if you also want me to just-as-precisely measure its velocity, then I'm sorry, but I just can't do both for you." It's nothing more than that, only presented with formulas.



Originally posted by NorEaster
It's knowable, but not from the specific approach that you've decided to take. That should tell you something, but so far it hasn't. Think about that. I'm not trying to win a debate, I'm trying to show you something that you'd probably be stunned to realize.


Are you saying reality, altogether, is knowable? We don't even know what a single thing actually IS. Can you say that you know altogether what even the simplest object IS? No one I know has ever said yes to this question. And so how can you know what reality altogether IS?

I understand you recognize that there is "consciousness" from other threads I have read of yours, but consciousness does not "know" reality as a separate objective something, as there is no separate knower knowing knowledge in consciousness.

I am always all ears to hear another well-considered view of reality, so try me and the rest of your readers here, if you please.


I'm saying that YES I can specifically state that the actual sub-structure of physical reality is objective, constant, predictable, and knowable, and that I do believe that I have identified it and factored how it develops as default progression to what we know and experience as human beings. And this is why I launched this thread concerning how it might be that a person could objectively find out if they had "done it" or if they were hopelessly lost in the outfield.

As you must be able to appreciate, given our exchange, this is a possibility that one cannot simply assume to be true. It has to be challenged, and yet, after 4 years of ongoing challenge, it seems very much to be holding up as bullet-proof. I guess that I'm a little intimidated by the implications of what I may have done here.
edit on 5/8/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by TheomExperience

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by TheomExperience

If i tell you something you just have to believe it to be true for it to be true. No one else has to believe me or you but evidently you may compare what has been said with what the "average truth" from societies perspective is. Do you really believe the electrical impulses and chemicals released by your brain define facts as objective? Try this for an example. Do not read any news or information of that nature at all for two weeks and when people tell you things, objective things because they believe it what are you going to do. Believe them, search for the answers online or go experience what is said first hand for yourself.
Nothing can really be objective if things are always changing and people are dieing. This is probably going to sound stupid but if everyone died off tomorrow bar say 1000 people scattered over the planet, what is objective today by critical mass standards wont necessarily be the same tomorrow.
If i need a "fact" then i would need to prove that to someone. But that someone is not "me" so i would only need to present this to them to manipulate their state of mind to something i could control for my agenda.


You're referring to closed relative reality spheres that are immeasurably farther down the progressive development chain than where my focus is directed. Human perception is incapable of objectivity. It takes an objective reality structure for perception to ever emerge, but perception itself is inherently subjective. Nothing else that exists is inherently subjective but perception. Contextually malleable and dynamically fluid, but never subjective.
edit on 5/7/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


Things can be simple or they can be complicated. I can objectify anything i want its called judgement but it only applies to me so its not really objective to someone else. If i could say without a doubt a statement that would never change, would be observed by everything in existence not just homo-sapiens forever then i would call that objective. If all we have is our perception and perception is inherently subjective, then there is no wrong or no fail-safe required. There simply just "is" and we need to decide if we want to keep repeating cycles or move forward. If we stay in cycles then we will be perceiving mistakes or being wrong but since we have created them its just ignorance and not taking personal responsibility for our own projections
As Chuck Norris says "The only time i was wrong was when i thought i was wrong but i was actually right"


What's simple and uncomplicated is the fact that I'm not dealing with the perception-based "reality" that the human mind CREATES as it observes what does, in fact, exist to be perceived and observed by the human mind. I'm dealing with that reality that is being OBSERVED by the human mind and being translated into the subjective "reality" that you seem intent on depicting as the subject of most of this thread's exchange. The human mind itself exists as real, but it doesn't create the reality that it exists within. How can it? It'd be like your body creating the entire atomic structure that it consists of before it ever comes together as a structure of atoms. That doesn't even make sense.

You're stuck in the mindset that requires a creator god thingy for anything to exist, and that's just plain unworkable as a reality-based existence platform.


Im just pointing out the obvious since my experience is all i will know. As much as you feel i am stuck in a mindset i feel your struggling to cope with the idea that you cant define anything for someone else. How does my mindset require a "creator god thingy"? I am not sure how you came to that conclusion but its simple to answer. I see things you do not.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster
I wasn't required to provide proof. This is a discussion. Not a dissertation. The "Uncertainty Principle" doesn't pertain to an existential sub-structure. It pertains to the fact that a precise measurement involving position and momentum can't be simultaneously known. That's pretty obvious stuff, and has nothing at all to do with the presence of a physical reality substructure that can be known. It's a statement that says "If you want the precise position of a particle at a precise instant within its ongoing trajectory, then I can give that to you, but if you also want me to just-as-precisely measure its velocity, then I'm sorry, but I just can't do both for you." It's nothing more than that, only presented with formulas.
The findings that led to the Uncertainty Principle are certainly relevant to objective existence - as the experiments were conducted on an elementary or fundamental particle - considered to be "a basic building block of the universe from which all other particles are made" (Wikipedia: Elementary particle).

The Uncertainty Principle does point to the unknowability or paradoxical nature of one of the basic building blocks, so cannot be casually dismissed. I agree that such findings do not provide the necessary grounds for a complete theory of everything, but these findings certainly do point to the paradoxical nature of trying to KNOW what everything is, in our objective reality.


Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm saying that YES I can specifically state that the actual sub-structure of physical reality is objective, constant, predictable, and knowable, and that I do believe that I have identified it and factored how it develops as default progression to what we know and experience as human beings. And this is why I launched this thread concerning how it might be that a person could objectively find out if they had "done it" or if they were hopelessly lost in the outfield.
I think we need a very clear definition of "knowable". I am not talking about being able to predict the behavior or pattern of some "thing", nor simply describe it, nor even being able to know its exact chemical make-up, etc. I am asking you if you know what the "thing" itself IS? What it actually is, in reality - not just a very detailed description about it, its characteristics, patterns, etc. No such complete knowing is possible, and the Uncertainty Principle also supports this at a most basic level of objective reality.


Originally posted by NorEaster
As you must be able to appreciate, given our exchange, this is a possibility that one cannot simply assume to be true. It has to be challenged, and yet, after 4 years of ongoing challenge, it seems very much to be holding up as bullet-proof. I guess that I'm a little intimidated by the implications of what I may have done here.
I certainly appreciate your passion and well-considered thought processes relative to this. I still am unclear about what you are actually presenting as your total view of reality, though I did finally get a chance to catch up on your other posts in response to others, and see that you subscribe to Holon theory. I assume your insight into reality is an extension of this philosophy or theory?

Okay, if it is true and holds up to various challenges, can you actually prove it altogether or is it (or at least aspects of it) simply self-evident to you? I guess I will just have to wait to hear more about what you are actually presenting...

edit on 8-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join