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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence

This is your own unique interpretation is it?
I like the way your wrote it in big yellow letters - it might fool some into believing it.


edit on 12-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence.
No impact whatsoever? The Uncertainty Principle certainly does not support this as we do impact what is objective when observing it.

Any point-of-view "causes" shifts in the measurements of objective arising. As opposed to there being actual endless parallel universes, there are infinite possible points-of-view, and so this variable cannot be fully accounted for when attempting to "know" what any object actually is.

edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence

This is your own unique interpretation is it?
I like the way your wrote it in big yellow letters - it might fool some into believing it.


edit on 12-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


That's the font that the board uses when you link a statement to a web site. I linked that statement to Dictionary.com where I got the excepted list of definitions. I didn't choose the big yellow letters.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence.
No impact whatsoever? The Uncertainty Principle certainly does not support this as we do impact what is objective when observing it.

Any point-of-view "causes" shifts in the measurements of objective arising. As opposed to there being actual endless parallel universes, there are infinite possible points-of-view, and so this variable cannot be fully accounted for when attempting to "know" what any object actually is.

edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)


The uncertainty principle only refers to the inherent imitations of observation and measurement. It has nothing at all to do with objective reality's capacity to be objective. I thought this was established pages ago with linked references.
edit on 5/12/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence

This is your own unique interpretation is it?
I like the way your wrote it in big yellow letters - it might fool some into believing it.


edit on 12-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


That's the font that the board uses when you link a statement to a web site. I linked that statement to Dictionary.com where I got the excepted list of definitions. I didn't choose the big yellow letters.

Thank you for clearing that up - I understand.
It is a strange definition in my opinion - I cannot find that statement on the web.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
The uncertainty principle only refers to the inherent imitations of observation and measurement. It has nothing at all to do with objective reality's capacity to be objective. I thought this was established pages ago with linked references.
I am not questioning objective reality's capacity to be "objective" - but only that observation does actually have an impact on that objective reality. How could it not? As you pointed out yesterday, the observer and the object "both exist within the objective reality confine that hosts that entire proximity set as the contextual environment that it is".

When both exist, they impact one another. The object gives rise to the observer function in that moment, and the observer function impacts the temporal measurements of the object. Such knowledge gets "reduced" to paradox - yielding only formulas of probabilities and possibilities. Given an infinite number of possible points-of-view, no such absolute "knowing" is possible, and thus, all knowledge of objective reality is reduced to paradox.

Such paradoxical knowledge is an aspect of the informational set of data you speak of, and would seemingly be necessary to take into account in terms of developing your model completely and reliably. You cannot fundamentally assume a total separation between the observer and the observed - it is theoretically done, but cannot be done in reality.

Of course, objective reality can be inferred as "objective" but never absolutely proven because any observing of it does affect one's information about it. So only Reality, Consciousness Itself, beyond all points-of-vew, beyond all observing and observed, beyond all conventional knowing - avails as absolutely true.


edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence.
No impact whatsoever? The Uncertainty Principle certainly does not support this as we do impact what is objective when observing it.

Any point-of-view "causes" shifts in the measurements of objective arising. As opposed to there being actual endless parallel universes, there are infinite possible points-of-view, and so this variable cannot be fully accounted for when attempting to "know" what any object actually is.

edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)


The uncertainty principle only refers to the inherent imitations of observation and measurement. It has nothing at all to do with objective reality's capacity to be objective. I thought this was established pages ago with linked references.
I am very interested in those links you mention, but I cannot find the post of yours that contains them. I reread your posts but want to study the links in more detail. I cannot just assume what you say is true - that the observer does not impact the actual characteristics of the observed. How can this be known if it takes an "observer" of some kind to do the measuring?

In other words, you are implying that the Uncertainty Principle is non-applicable by your statements, and I cannot see how this can be.

Here is an interesting link speaking about the Uncertainty Principle and also that "Nature is Uncertain -- Even Without Measurements":
www.sciencedaily.com... %2Fquantum_physics+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Matter+%26+Energy+News+--+Quantum+Physics%29


edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence

This is your own unique interpretation is it?
I like the way your wrote it in big yellow letters - it might fool some into believing it.


edit on 12-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


That's the font that the board uses when you link a statement to a web site. I linked that statement to Dictionary.com where I got the excepted list of definitions. I didn't choose the big yellow letters.

Thank you for clearing that up - I understand.
It is a strange definition in my opinion - I cannot find that statement on the web.


It's the use of that definition in a sentence. By the way, that statement exists on the web. On this page, in fact.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by mysticnoon
As long as awareness is filtered through mind, the potential for delusion is always present. It is not until self goes beyond the realm of mind that it is free from illusion.

Because you have not risen above mind but are stuck in the mind, you will not understand that awareness is not filtered through the mind. Awareness is aware of mind. Mind is not aware of awareness - mind hasn't a clue what awareness is because it is outside of it's perception - in fact mind cannot see, all mind does is abstract and interpret - this abstracting and interpretation is seen to be happening (by awareness). The mind is not something separate - the mind is a story teller, telling stories - these stories convince the one of more than one. Oneness dreams of more so it can play the game of being human (individual).
Mind speaks and is heard by something - can you hear/know thought? - that which is hearing is awareness. The speaking thoughts are an appearance. The appearance is constantly changing - whereas awareness is constant and quiet and still (awareness does not speak).
When you recognize yourself as awareness there is a constant peace no matter what appears as the sound and fury of existence (inclusive of what the mind speaks).

edit on 12-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


To my understanding, you are describing non-dual realisation in a conscious state of mind.

What of non-dual realisation in unconscious and subconscious states of mind?

Once you are able to remain fully aware during deep sleep and subconscious processes and realise non-duality in these states, then there is the opportunity to realise oneness beyond mind.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Originally posted by NorEaster
Objective means that your awareness of what is objective has no impact on that objective thing's ongoing existence.
No impact whatsoever? The Uncertainty Principle certainly does not support this as we do impact what is objective when observing it.

Any point-of-view "causes" shifts in the measurements of objective arising. As opposed to there being actual endless parallel universes, there are infinite possible points-of-view, and so this variable cannot be fully accounted for when attempting to "know" what any object actually is.

edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)


The uncertainty principle only refers to the inherent imitations of observation and measurement. It has nothing at all to do with objective reality's capacity to be objective. I thought this was established pages ago with linked references.


I am very interested in those links you mention, but I cannot find the post of yours that contains them. I reread your posts but want to study the links in more detail.


Here's the link. I guess I assumed that I included it in this post - reply to post by NorEaster along with my digested overview of what the page presented as that specific principle. Oh well. There it is.


I cannot just assume what you say is true - that the observer does not impact the actual characteristics of the observed. How can this be known if it takes an "observer" of some kind to do the measuring?


I can't assume that an observer doesn't affect some measurements, but that doesn't affect the 99.999999999% of objective reality that isn't under observation or being measured at this specific instant. C'mon, get real here. So much is NOT BEING OBSERVED OR MEASURED, and yet it still exists. Your Uncertainty Principle only pertains to what is being observed or measured. Let it go. It was a flawed application of that specific principle. Move on from it.


In other words, you are implying that the Uncertainty Principle is non-applicable by your statements, and I cannot see how this can be.


You can't measure the sub-structure of physical reality. That's absurd on the face of it. If you honestly think that I have been trying to discuss the movement of a photon and how impossible it is for a physicist to measure its relative location and its definite velocity at the same precise instant with equal accuracy, then - I hate to suggest it but - I have no business wasting any more of my time with this exchange. If this is really what you think is being discussed here - at least from my own side of this exchange - then you simply haven't been paying attention to what I've been writing. And if it's not true that you honestly think that I've been debating the measurement of an object in space during this exchange, then you're busting my balls, and I have no business allowing that to continue either.

My youngest brother is a sociopath. Well, he was a sociopath. He's dead not. He used to play mental games with people and just as they'd be set to toss his ass out of wherever he was at that moment, he'd pull up on the abuse just enough, and become just the right amount of concerned that he might've upset them to get them to calm down and let the encounter go on. But then he'd push it again, and it was a game he'd play to see how long he could work that bizarre seesaw of pissing them off balanced with getting them to forgive his behavior. Sooner or later, he'd get his block knocked off, but he'd laugh about it later and brag about how many times he'd pushed whomever it was to the brink, only to back him down again. Again and again.

I'm done with this thread. I used to be the one guy that my brother wouldn't f*ck with, because I have no respect or tolerance for that kind of seesaw bullsh*t. I still have no respect or tolerance for it.

I made my points and I won't be checking back on this idiotic waste of time. We're done here.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Like any conversation with a colleague I would just take from it what I can. If there is anything to recycle for another conversation piece do so. Leave the trash to rot and move on. If your not sure what to throw away and what to recycle you can always background the information. That's what things like google is for!



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



How can you accurately determine whether you're wrong (or right) if no definite or authoritative basis has ever been established concerning the information or insight that you feel you've broken new ground on?


Right or wrong should be appearent or at least discernable by successful use of the conclusion, idea or invention.

The power of freedom of action drove the age of invention. Many inventors could not prove that their inventions worked. They probably had a sense of proportion or symetry or cause and effect that led to a best guess that only through experiment or prototype could become a reality.

Unless the insight or information are useful, their reality is moot.

*Rant*
Hence the regulation by the FDA, OSHA, the Federal Reserve and most all political/social/ecomomic institutional restrictions have imprisioned and stupified the one human culture we have in common.



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


You are over intellectualizing yourself COMPLETELY, out of truth. Yours is a complex web of cerebral nonsense. I wouldn't say this ordinarily, but this forum is filled with SERIOUS seekers of truth. And sometimes I can't stomach seeing someone spew out volumes and volumes of philosophical nonsense, all while you yourself are still looking for answers. This is all scaffolding of the mind that you are offering to these people, yet when your mind is transcended..the scaffolding (the untruth) will be thrown away. Why give someone something, that you yourself will throw away when you find what you are looking for? They are already heavy with knowledge, ideas, philosophies...non of which is actually leading them any closer to truth, even if it appears to. Why hinder their efforts with the floods of your brain storms?

Why give them, work in progress knowledge, when all of the knowledge you have is cast into the fire in light of the irrefutable truth?

Everyone should watch 'Plato's cave' on YouTube to get an idea of what I'm talking about. Many of you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
edit on 12-5-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
It sounds like our friend, NorEaster, is not understanding what I am saying about the importance of point-of-view and why I have brought it up several times relative to his theories.

When objective reality is assumed to be a fixed something, it provides a fixed "location" or point-of-view for various scientific observations and determinations about physicality. However, this is simply a methodology, not our actual reality.

Objective reality is not fixed, and is impacted by simply being observed. This is NOT just confined to the laboratory in terms of measuring the speed and location of a photon - but is operative for every point-of-view assumed by anyone and everyone. Our relationship to so-called objective reality is not just physical - it is psychophysical - a play of mind and body and objects in space-time. When one gets real sensitive to this, things can change for the better, and even be transcended through recognizing that all arises in Awareness or Consciousness Itself, beyond ALL points-of-view - and "objective reality" is also recognized to be far less fixed than previously assumed.

This truth of Reality is self-evident when noticed, but most people do not want to notice this because the endless seeking for fulfillment, distraction, etc., stops in that moment of recognition, and each subsequent moment thereafter. One cannot notice they are simply Consciousness or Awareness unless they abide as what they actually are - that very Awareness - and for most people this is uncomfortable for various reasons: either physical, emotional, or mental.

I am not sure altogether why NorEaster has on several occasions been rude to me, and now tried to liken me to a sociopath. I have persisted in trying to understand his notions, and thought I had done so at least a fair amount relative to Identity Survival, the quanta theory he proposed, etc. - although he was unable for contractual reasons to disclose very much.

I think there are many reasons he withdrew from this thread. Maybe he thought his very partially-explained theories would get more oohs and aahs - but I don't really know. I also think the concepts were difficult to understand especially given some of the newly-invented terminology, so it would take a fair amount more, in my view, to really understand his thoughts fully.

Anyway, I am not used to having people be so impatient and intolerant and even rude when their views are questioned. I am used to questioning everything, and having my own views questioned fully as well - as it should be, given our lives in this realm, that we are all in the same boat here, and even the "Deny Ignorance" motto of this Forum.

I don't really look at anything as a complete waste of time, nor idiotic, but I sure dislike being treated rudely, especially for no reason that is obvious to me..

Well, thanks for listening - and see you around.


edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 


I appreciate both positions, even when I appear to agree with none.


As I suggested to itsnowagain, the OP's journey through this intellectual labyrinth may well see him emerging to an experience of Reality which you and I may only imagine.

Who knows?



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 



Objective reality is not fixed.


Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The fact that everything exsists in the first place is miraculous. Ultimate reality could have any quality.


edit on 12-5-2013 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
It sounds like our friend, NorEaster, is not understanding what I am saying about the importance of point-of-view and why I have brought it up several times relative to his theories.

When objective reality is assumed to be a fixed something, it provides a fixed "location" or point-of-view for various scientific observations and determinations about physicality. However, this is simply a methodology, not our actual reality.

Objective reality is not fixed, and is impacted by simply being observed. This is NOT just confined to the laboratory in terms of measuring the speed and location of a photon - but is operative for every point-of-view assumed by anyone and everyone. Our relationship to so-called objective reality is not just physical - it is psychophysical - a play of mind and body and objects in space-time. When one gets real sensitive to this, things can change for the better, and even be transcended through recognizing that all arises in Awareness or Consciousness Itself, beyond ALL points-of-view - and "objective reality" is also recognized to be far less fixed than previously assumed.

This truth of Reality is self-evident when noticed, but most people do not want to notice this because the endless seeking for fulfillment, distraction, etc., stops in that moment of recognition, and each subsequent moment thereafter. One cannot notice they are simply Consciousness or Awareness unless they abide as what they actually are - that very Awareness - and for most people this is uncomfortable for various reasons: either physical, emotional, or mental.

I am not sure altogether why NorEaster has on several occasions been rude to me, and now tried to liken me to a sociopath. I have persisted in trying to understand his notions, and thought I had done so at least a fair amount relative to Identity Survival, the quanta theory he proposed, etc. - although he was unable for contractual reasons to disclose very much.

I think there are many reasons he withdrew from this thread. Maybe he thought his very partially-explained theories would get more oohs and aahs - but I don't really know. I also think the concepts were difficult to understand especially given some of the newly-invented terminology, so it would take a fair amount more, in my view, to really understand his thoughts fully.

Anyway, I am not used to having people be so impatient and intolerant and even rude when their views are questioned. I am used to questioning everything, and having my own views questioned fully as well - as it should be, given our lives in this realm, that we are all in the same boat here, and even the "Deny Ignorance" motto of this Forum.

I don't really look at anything as a complete waste of time, nor idiotic, but I sure dislike being treated rudely, especially for no reason that is obvious to me..

Well, thanks for listening - and see you around.


edit on 5/12/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)


Erased my post
edit on 12-5-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Originally posted by mysticnoon
Once you are able to remain fully aware during deep sleep and subconscious processes and realise non-duality in these states, then there is the opportunity to realise oneness beyond mind.

Who told you this?

I offer this:

edit on 13-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Originally posted by mysticnoon
Once you are able to remain fully aware during deep sleep and subconscious processes and realise non-duality in these states, then there is the opportunity to realise oneness beyond mind.

Who told you this?


These are the teachings across a wide range of yoga and mystic practices. I try to avoid specific references because I prefer the discussions to remain about the philosophies rather than particular personalities or schools of thought.

If you are inclined to do some research on your own, key words could be: causal realm, consciousness, nonduality, yoga sound, inner regions, beyond mind, and so forth.



posted on May, 13 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by mysticnoon

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


Originally posted by mysticnoon
Once you are able to remain fully aware during deep sleep and subconscious processes and realise non-duality in these states, then there is the opportunity to realise oneness beyond mind.

Who told you this?


These are the teachings across a wide range of yoga and mystic practices. I try to avoid specific references because I prefer the discussions to remain about the philosophies rather than particular personalities or schools of thought.

If you are inclined to do some research on your own, key words could be: causal realm, consciousness, nonduality, yoga sound, inner regions, beyond mind, and so forth.


I think "truth seekers" often go through a phase where they're trying to fit Reality, whatever you want to call it, into all the facts and notions and observations they've collected over the years. You just can't do it. And you're never going to be able to.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join