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.

 

The Language of Vampyr

page: 126
218
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: joshint

Sorry, yes, ETH means extra terrestrial hypothesis, concerning the belief that extra terrestrials beings do exist, and that they come from a place outside Sol-3. The hypothesis assumes you already believe in ETs, either by direct or indirect evidence, or by inference.

For what concerns magic, yes, I stated whatever phenomena you wish to call "magic" must comply with the law of physics. If they do, they are not magical; if they don't, they cannot be.

By the way, any sufficiently advanced technology will look like magic only for those who think physics is also magic. Dematerializing a dove or walking on waters is just a trick. Your videos are two good examples of tricks.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: tetra50

If you mean that it would appear that it has entanglement, then I agree with you.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: joshint
a reply to: Direne

There was a lot of life inside of me, I've reached different understanding that resonates within.
But as time goes on I was slowly loosing my interest of what's within and beyond.
It seems what I thought was better, but as time goes on it seems to be not any better than what is without.
I think understanding within is not any better than understanding without.
I think knowing the soul is not any better than knowing life.
Knowledge of within and beyond doesn't seem to pierce what is without.
It doesn't make you a magician or a sorcerer. It seems simply futile.
I am yet to meet a real magician like these ones:



This seems so poignant to me on a very human level. I feel similarly, and think your reflections on this are a very real example of what Serdigam is saying about purposeful stagnation: your assessment is what is purposefully happening via stagnation of our species, in this place and time.
Keep striving to care, though, and hoping that understanding both within and without is actually worth knowing….
tetra
ETA: and yes, I meant just that, an appearance of entanglement.
edit on 27-5-2015 by tetra50 because: answering



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne

Hypothesis. Why haven't I think of that.



If they do, they are not magical; if they don't, they cannot be.


Well, you're extremely wrong.

But unlike you we don't fully grasp quantum mechanics yet. So everything that is magical by our naked eyes are "magical". Our laws of physic doesn't fully include QM yet and our views are limited. But we don't fully agree with your statement.
edit on 27-5-2015 by joshint because: I agree to disagree with bits of humor.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne

Well, Mrs. Direne. with all due respect.

Do you believe in aliens? If so, what evidence do you have?




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: joshint
a reply to: Direne

Well, Mrs. Direne. with all due respect.

Do you believe in aliens? If so, what evidence do you have?


I believe part of her main point, joshint, is our definitions and attitude vis a vis the word: alien.
According to her description, nothing may be "alien….."
tetra



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne


Your videos are two good examples of tricks.


I don't completely agree with this. I think it's more on Soul Continuum.

forgottenlanguages-full.forgottenlanguages.org...

See, that monk remembered we are all one with the objects we see. It is not about a monk and a bunch of wrapped paper that gets on fire, rather, it's all about a mind that forms a continuum with the paper so that, when the mind thinks of fire... the bunch of paper gets in flames.

You can also do it, if you just were to remember there is no space between you and the paper. Your are bound together.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: joshint


To believe is not the verb to use here. To be convinced is.

I am convinced life is not a miracle. Being alive is. I do know there are life forms in other planetary bodies. I do know (and you too) interstellar travel is possible, no big deal once you get the level of knowledge you got in 1905. That you do not travel in 2015 is just a matter of tradition (it happened the same with Columbus: no money, no journey). I can easily infer that life forms outside Sol-3 can travel to whatever other places they wish to. I can also infer their spacecrafts will be made of any or a combination of the elements in the periodic table, the only difference being likely to be the technology applied to manufacture the spacecraft.

You do not need evidence. You need confidence. The same confidence you show when you talk about superstrings; the same confidence you had about the existence of Higgs' boson quite before you finally detected traces of it. There is not a single objection from physics against the existence of ETs. Life is not even mentioned in any book of physics. Physics remains silent on what concerns life forms. The only time physics speaks is just to remind you, time and again, that whatever a life form is, it must comply with all known laws.

This is what makes any god or goddess uninteresting: that miracles are banned. No evidence and no confidence will make gods real.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: joshint

John Chang put a lit cigarette in that newspaper.

That's why it catches on fire.



no space between you and the paper.


In the case of John's trick, it's the space between the paper and the lit cig, that's why he pumps the paper gently like a bellows before it catches fire.


edit on 27-5-2015 by Bybyots because: . : .



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne

But evidence and confidence are completely different things.

With evidence you could say that you are truly confident.

But without evidence, you're not really confident. But, uncertain.

Confidence doesn't guarantee evidence. And knowing doesn't mean evidence.

However, now I see that you believe in aliens.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: joshint

You are right, joshint. But look at that trick closer: the monk can get that piece of paper to catch fire; would he be able to do it if we replace that bunch of paper by a kid? And do not forget that the monk can get that paper to catch fire, as per what he senses; and sure he could even make you believe the paper is in flames. And sure you both could die burnt in flames. But the fact is there is always an observer for whom the paper is not burning. That observer is the independent observer, the one free of mental fabrications, the one immune to conventions, traditions, the only observer who gets it right.

You see, whether Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive depends always on a stupid observer who knows a) that cats exists; b) that cats can die; c) that cats can live. Replace that observer by an independent observer who knows nothing about cats or life or death and tell him to open the box. What would he see?

Eyes, ears, hands make very bad sensors, that's why magic works.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne


This is what makes any god or goddess uninteresting: that miracles are banned. No evidence and no confidence will make gods real.


How do you explain miracles by scientific means or laws of physics?


edit on 27-5-2015 by joshint because: Sorry for asking about Miracles Direne.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: joshint

Miracles do not exist, joshint.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne

Thanks for the reply Direne, Now I gained more insight.

Let me rephrase my reply:


To believe is not the verb to use here. To be convinced is.


Okay.


I am convinced life is not a miracle. Being alive is.


Do you mean that life can be explained by laws of physics?

I can agree with the latter.


I do know there are life forms in other planetary bodies.


But, do you have evidence?


That you do not travel in 2015 is just a matter of tradition (it happened the same with Columbus: no money, no journey).


Do you mean that you would travel this year?


I can easily infer that life forms outside Sol-3 can travel to whatever other places they wish to.


I think it depends on what life forms you mean.


I can also infer their spacecrafts will be made of any or a combination of the elements in the periodic table, the only difference being likely to be the technology applied to manufacture the spacecraft.


If you mean intelligent life forms, yes. I agree.


You do not need evidence. You need confidence. The same confidence you show when you talk about superstrings; the same confidence you had about the existence of Higgs' boson quite before you finally detected traces of it. There is not a single objection from physics against the existence of ETs.


But, do you really have evidence? Based on you statement I could say with confidence that you don't have.


This is what makes any god or goddess uninteresting: that miracles are banned. No evidence and no confidence will make gods real.


That's sad. But I think miracles happen. It seem to happen from time to time.
edit on 27-5-2015 by joshint because: No more questions about miracles.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Direne
a reply to: joshint

Miracles do not exist, joshint.


I see, so miracles are just misconception by our limited senses.

So, what we see as miracles can be scientifically explained by laws of physics.

I see, Now I understand more, though with limited perceptions.

Thanks for the reply Direne.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne



But the fact is there is always an observer for whom the paper is not burning.

That observer is the independent observer..


Or in the sense of Derrida and post-structuralism the person would be considered to be profoundly decentered.

Which is why your Koyaanisqatsi link has puzzled me for days.

But whatever, right?




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Direne


That observer is the independent observer, the one free of mental fabrications, the one immune to conventions, traditions, the only observer who gets it right.


Using our own words, what do we call this independent observer?



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Respect post.
edit on 27-5-2015 by joshint because: I can.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Till next time then. Chao.

edit on 27-5-2015 by joshint because: I can.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: joshint

Those independent observers, joshint, are true independent observers. That makes them hateful and hideous for you. Where were those ETs when people were killed in concentration camps in Germany? Hovering gracefully over green fields by the camps? Where are those technologically advanced beings when kids are bombed, abused, and raped?

Where is God? Is he an independent observer?

Opening the box to see what has happened to the cat will automatically turn you into a God: either you kill the cat, or the cat lives. It seems this makes the independent observer to smile, there, sitting on the dark corner...

A volcano erupts, and there you are, an independent observer observing. Nuclear accident in a power plant, tsunamis, earthquakes... there they are, observing. They are not gods, they simply observe, regardless of your beliefs, faith, convictions, traditions, or sufferings. They simply observe. And bear this in mind: they observe even your aliens. Getting involved will make them gods, and gods, you see, tend to get too emotional.

a reply to: Bybyots

Now you have your answer. Koyaanisqatsi is about that: observing, no implication. No involvement.



new topics

top topics



 
218
<< 123  124  125    127  128  129 >>

log in

join