View Full Version : Reality
I have certain beleives on reality and i was wondering about others view on exactly what reality is. i beleive that what we see has reality is a physical representation of energy and that when one can do flips or any other physical or mental ability that is "imposiable" is because they have honed their own energy to do that and that any rule like gravity that aplies to reality actualy can be broken if the proper will,energy and training.
I would apreciate this imensly if i could get some others views on this for i am researching into the subject imensly.
The proper name for the energy that one has is known as Chi the energy body
Mumeishi
Nov18-03, 12:01 PM
Doing flips does not violate the laws of physics - it exploits them. The outward force is temporarily greater than the force of gravity - just like jumping up and down. Its pretty well understood and predictable - no additional mysterious forces are required.
As for reality, I'm of the opinion that ultimately existence as a whole might have no further description than that *it is*. The best and most wide-ranging theory of everything we have seems to be M-theory, which is just in its infancy. Everything is vibrations of different frequencies on bits of 'string' and 'branes'.
While some people can do seemingly amazing things using chi i would not call it breaking reality. That brigs to mind magic and chi is not magic. Controlling and maniplulating energy is something we do everyday such as turning on a light. Chi is no different. It may not be scientific but it is part of reality.
Mumeishi
Nov19-03, 03:46 AM
The 'chi' interpretation of those forces is not scientific, but there is no violation of the known forces.
If chi is manipulated in the right way the "laws" of physics can and have been broken it just takes a large amount of training and focus combined with will of the one using the chi and the "rules of existence" can be broken
Mumeishi
Nov19-03, 05:09 PM
Is that statement based on actual evidence in any way?
These 'chi-masters' ought to be pretty famous, powerful and perhaps wealthy with these superhuman powers. They could go around fighting crime like spiderman or feed the poor by winning kung fu competitions.
Don't tell me... they're too humble for all these thing so they keep their powers secret. Should have known. So how do you know all about this?
Play nice, Mumeishi [;)].
Wolf, could you perhaps give a specific instance, of when a person has defied the laws of physics? Also, I wish to point out that the term "laws" is misleading, since they are really descriptions (or, rather, "prescriptions") of the way things in the Universe ought to work, based on empirical reasoning.
The Universe does not obey these "laws", they just explain how the Universe already is. Therefore, if someone is capable of doing something, then it is allowed for by the "laws of the Universe" by default, since the fact that it happened makes it "possible".
Oh, btw, welcome to the PFs, Wolf. [:)]
It's good to have you here.
Good reply Mentat. You took the words right out of my mouth. While chi may not be explained or even acknowledged by science it obviously can not do the impossible and break the laws of physics. What can be done and has been done using chi or any other force has to be within the bounds of physics. We may not understand exactly how, what, where, or why and it may not agree with our preconceived notions of what physics is; but, if it can be done and it is real then it must fall within the laws of physics. We may have to change our description of those laws to take in and account for Chi but that is does not mean that the actual laws are broken just our understanding of them.
Some examples:
A small child lifting a grown man up off the floor.
Two weight lifters unable to lift the same man up off the floor.
Two strong men unable to bend the arm at the elbow of one man.
Walking on broken glass, breaking cement blocks and planks.
A small woman holding a large man down on the floor with just the edge her hands.
The list goes on and on. Some I have seen with my own eyes, some I have read about. I have done a few things myself that defy common, western, sense and science. I have written here about one experience of making the temperature of my hand read 108 degrees F. by will alone.
Try this: pinch and flick your ear lobes. Then make a circle with you thumb and second finger by placing the finger tips together. Have some one try to pull them apart. It should be fairly easy to do.
Now carress and pet your earlobes for a few seconds. Be nice to them and then do the same thing with your fingers. It should be much harder if not impossible for the same person to now pull your fingers apart. This has worked for everyone that I have seen try it reguardless of background or training. If it works for you please explain why to me. I'd really like to know.
Mumeishi
Nov20-03, 03:26 PM
I seen Shaolin monks perform some pretty amazing stuff too.
All this stuff comes down to technique, leverage and so on. There are also people who have been impressing people for thousands of years with their apparently superhuman abilities - they are called 'illusionists'.
How do you know the weight-lifters were really trying? How do you know the child was unaided? Are you sure the situation was the same - same position, leverage etc?
Walking etc on sharp objects is done by spreading the weight evenly and being extremely gentle. Its probably not very comfortable, but if there are enough points of contact, the skin will not be penetrated. We're not made of butter.
Breaking blocks and planks is not superhuman. Its just technique. They teach it in karate classes.
The last one sounds like aikido. I've seen a frail old master holding down a much larger and younger student with a couple of fingers. Admittedly, i think the student wasn't trying all that hard, but it can be done and it is accomplished by continually adjusting the opponents balance, when he is at his weakest position, so that the act of getting up, literally never gets off the ground.
It's amazing what can be accomplished with good technique - a hard punch can be deflected with a flick of the wrist and a large man can be defeated by a small woman.
How do I know? I don't. I just told you some of what I've seen. It is not all a matter of leverage and technigue other than the technigue of controling chi, wieght, connection with the earth and making the skin inpeneraterable.
The was a blound haired caucation from Jacksonville, NC. I think he was a Marine or former Marine wh was a sensi at a karate dojo there. The were at a tournament and he gave a few demonstrations. He was 5'10" or so and not a big man but not small. He walked out into the middle of the gymnasium floor and call out two (Now that I've thought more about this) small children about six years old and held his hand out from his sides and told the children to pick him up. They each took a hand and lifted him up as high as they could with their hands up over their heads. He told them to take away and hold up one of their hands and they did this. The man probably weighted around 180 and here he was being held up off the floor by one hand of two six year old on either side. I agree that the weight lifter who latter tried to lift him up off the floor but couldn't could be faking it but I don't think that they would do that under those circumstances.
reguardless there was no way to fake the two children lifting this grown man up.
Mumeishi
Nov21-03, 07:44 AM
As I said, people have been doing tricks which would appear pretty much identical to that for centuries. You cannot assume that things are as they appear to be. There is not a single documented case of someone being able to use 'chi' to alter their weight by a single gram.
Mumeishi
Nov21-03, 08:39 AM
It's also interesting that the styles which win these big prize-winning free-style competitions are not traditional, chi-wielding kung-fu or karate masters, but fit, talented, progressive and highly trained pragmaticists: Jeet June Do, Vale Tudo, shoot-fighters, Cuban boxers etc. Of course the traditional guys who can't compete will have their excuses why they are 'above' such competitions.
Although these competitions are not real street fights, they are the nearest thing to streetfighting under observervable conditions.
Personally I've trained in several different martial arts over the last ten years in this order: Northern Mantis Kung-fu, Eagle Claw Kung Fu, Wing Chun Kung Fu, Kicj-boxing, Jeet Kune Do. Yes, I could even 'feel a ball of chi between my palms' when guided to do so by one Sifu in Kowloon Park, Hong Kong. But, I'm not naive enough to assume that's what I was really feeling.
you are right that was the point i have been inching towards that the curent 'laws' need to be better defined and yes i do have proof of these things happening that poroblem i have with proving it is that i live in dartmouth nova scotia canada if i could meet you then i could prove to you that that is all posiable through focusing of your chi the reason people like me who can manipulate there chi in such a way to do the 'imposiable' is that well what happens to a kid in school who is smarter then the rest of the kids by far...... he is outcasted he is treated diferently people start tp use him......what hapenes to the guy or girl that is straonger then all the other's....theyer outcasted the only way people like me who can do what we do to live in society is to hind our ability....'the sly eagle hides it's tallons' we are forced by the way society acts to hind what we can do so we are not feared or outcasted and even used if people like me went around all the time doing these things then what would haeppen we would be watched more closely by people some would even not go near us or talk to us even trust us because our ability exceed the 'norm' so we hide and create groups of people that can do the same thing as us how do you think secret martial arts where created some people who did not want to take there ability public but wanted to be with others like them created there own secret groups martial arts means inm french 'special arts' that to me is the truest defination i have ever heard about it because that is what it is it just depends on how time and focus is put into it example i have been training for 6 years and yet i have 3 black belt's and can use my chi in way's that grand master's can but the grand master's have been training for over 30 years and yet me only 6 that is due to the amount of focus i have put into it argo explaining what i said about we all have chi but the more focused it is the better we are if you have any other qustion for me about chi be my guest and post them
p.s. thank you to the people who have welcomed me i am happy to be here
Mumeishi
Nov21-03, 08:46 AM
Welcome Wolf!
Now prove it!
you have not asked me a question
Mumeishi
Nov21-03, 09:20 AM
You're claiming to have superhuman powers beyond that acknowledged or understood beyond normal science or society. The onus is on you to prove it. Otherwise why should anyone be impressed by your talk?
I claim that i have no superhuman abilities you asumed that i said that i can focus my chi into doing the claimed "imposible" also i cannot prove anything unless i was face to face with you other wise i cannot and besides i say i can do some things that people do not understand what they do not understand they claim has "evil or fear it" and the superhuman does what is completley imposible or it would not be "super" i do what people did not know can be done big diference
Originally posted by Wolf
I claim that i have no superhuman abilities you asumed that i said that i can focus my chi into doing the claimed "imposible" also i cannot prove anything unless i was face to face with you other wise i cannot and besides i say i can do some things that people do not understand what they do not understand they claim has "evil or fear it" and the superhuman does what is completley imposible or it would not be "super" i do what people did not know can be done big diference
A little punctuation would be helpful, Wolf. [:)]
Anyway, something "super" just has to be miraculous, not impossible. In fact, if it were impossible, then it wouldn't happen. A miracle, OTOH, is what was previously considered impossible, but proved not to be.
Mumeishi
Nov21-03, 12:12 PM
Why don't you go and prove it to your local skeptical society or the equivalent then?
What is you can actually do?
Bend your foot behind your head? Put your finger up one nostril and out the other? Backflips?
The imposible is only imposible untill some one does it years ago the internet was thought to be imposible but it has been done so it is posible just has never been done before do you think that most see it as posible that a 15 teen year old can do 40 push up's with each arm? no but yet it can and has been done do you think that people see it as posible to jump into the air and float for 3 to 5 seconds before even moving down?do you think that people think it is poisble to run up and along walls??? what about moving fater then almost anyone can see?? i have sudied martial arts for 6 years as i mentioned before and yet i have skill equal to poeple who have studied for 20 years and are in there physical prime this whole post started by me pretty much saying what is reality and why is it posible that human will can change reality if reality is all?i am wondering to what reality is i have come to the conculusion given the prove and information i have received to this point that reality is a physical representation of energy......and yet i still cannot phathom why can will break the "rules" of reality? is it because the "rules" have not been completly looked into and that what we determine the "imposible" is only that way because we have not done it yet..???or are some things trully "imposible" this whole conversation takes me to the saying "even if you have dropped a peble 1,ooo times keep dorbing for maybe one time it may float"this to me is saying maybe we ALL as human beings with will should try the some "imposible" things a thousand + times to see if it is really imposible maybe by conecting with our chi we could do the "imposible"
Wolf,
Strictly speaking, if something is impossible, it can never be done. If something can be done even in the far distant future under different technology then it is not impossible. The laws of physics and reality can not be broken most of the time but sometimes they can be circumvented as in tunneling. We are getting into quantum mechanics here and I am not an expert in this.
All of the things that you say that you can do or have seen done are all obviously possible. I have been told and read where levitation is frequently experienced by groups during group meditation.
The "laws" are not broken. They either are circuvented, or not wholly or completely understood, or don't apply under those circumstances.
There is nothing supernatural about any of it. The is no magic or miracle. It is simply the application of technigue and training that anyone can do with trainig and practice.
Sometimes all that is required is the knowldge that it can be done. I have experienced this myself. I have not studied martial arts myself but got involved while my son was taking karate. We would go to a tournament and see a demonstration and then go home ad try it ourselves. It would work at least to a degree. A simple example is the lifting of the man by a children. We saw that and when at home we tried it. My son would mentally ground himself to the earth and I could not lift him at all. He then ungrounded himself and willed himself to be light and when I tried to lift him up it was almost as if he flew into the air. The same with bending the arm. Two grown strong men could not bend my arm at the elbow. I was not exerting any effort, simply ignoring their efforts and willing my arm not to bend. It amazes me how simple and natural it is; yet, it seems to defy common sense and physics. I can't explain it. I only know that it is chi.
Mumeishi
Nov29-03, 12:00 PM
most see it as posible that a 15 teen year old can do 40 push up's with each arm?
I see no reason why that should be impossible. I've seen athletes and acrobats doing similar things. Its just a matter of training and a certain amount of talent.
no but yet it can and has been done do you think that people see it as posible to jump into the air and float for 3 to 5 seconds before even moving down?
It depends what you mean by 'float for 3 to 5 seconds '. A long jumper might stay in the air for a long time. 5 seconds seems excessive though. That does sound impossible unless you are falling or aided in some way. Why don't these super martials enter the Olympics?
do you think that people think it is poisble to run up and along walls???
I've seen that done. Its not impossible under the right circumstances - its mainly a matter of using momentum and g-force to get some grip on the surface I would have thought.
what about moving fater then almost anyone can see??
How fast is that? Measure it. Then I'll tell you whether you should enter the Olympics.
Iacchus32
Nov30-03, 12:23 AM
Wouldn't it be fair to say that reality exists in layers? Beginnning with that which is most ineffible and ending with that which is most concrete? Now who's to say we don't have a spirit, or a soul, and that there is an afterlife, which in effect is a return to the beginning of everything we see before us? Indeed, what are mere physical limitations compared to that which is limitless and unbound by matter, The Spirit?
It wouldn't certainly seem like magic now wouldn't it? [;)]
Hmm ... what's that they say? "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak?"
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Wouldn't it be fair to say that reality exists in layers? Beginnning with that which is most ineffible and ending with that which is most concrete? Now who's to say we don't have a spirit, or a soul, and that there is an afterlife, which in effect is a return to the beginning of everything we see before us? Indeed, what are mere physical limitations compared to that which is limitless and unbound by matter, The Spirit?
It wouldn't certainly seem like magic now wouldn't it? [;)]
Hmm ... what's that they say? "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak?"
Well, you could be right, but I see adding the assumption of reality existing in such "layers" as you decribed to be an unnecessary addition (violation of Occam's Razor).
Also, I'd be careful of using the term "limitless" about the Spirit realm or anything else, if I were you...Wuliheron may not be too active recently, but...he's still out there [!:)][:D].
Lastly, what would connect the physical realm with the non-physical?
Mumeishi
Dec1-03, 11:47 AM
Lastly, what would connect the physical realm with the non-physical?
Email. IP/TCP technology (broadband).
Jeez, get with the program, dude.
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Email. IP/TCP technology (broadband).
Jeez, get with the program, dude.
LMBO! I meant that to be a serious question, dude. LOL! [:D]
Yes, as we all know, E-mail is both physical and non-physical, so it can interact with the physical but still isn't physical...it's a good thing this whole world really exists in my mind, and my mind is inside a matrix run by large purple cows who exist (of course) only in my mind...
Mumeishi
Dec1-03, 12:32 PM
There is no logical necessity for data to run on a physical medium is there? It could run on a purely...um...spiritual medium. Why else do you think they call it an 'Ethernet' connection?
Originally posted by Mumeishi
There is no logical necessity for data to run on a physical medium is there? It could run on a purely...um...spiritual medium. Why else do you think they call it an 'Ethernet' connection?
Alright man, I believe the sarcasm has run its course, don't you? I agree as to the ridiculousness of these ideas, but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious [g)]. Anyway (merely for the purpose of those who are still confused on this topic), sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec3-03, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all. (SNoP)
You keep saying that as if you have some kind of proof, please show it!! otherwise, accept that mabey it does happen, and you just haven't figured it out yet, nor how it occurs.
Originally posted by Mentat
Alright man, I believe the sarcasm has run its course, don't you? I agree as to the ridiculousness of these ideas, but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious [g)]. Anyway (merely for the purpose of those who are still confused on this topic), sure, data could run on a "spiritual medium" but it would still have no way of interacting with the physical realm, and would thus never be noticed by physical beings (like us) at all.
What you say would be true, Mentat, if we were purely physical beings; but, we are not just physical but mental and spiritual beings.
We have physical bodies, subjective minds and spirits or souls. All of these interact. We have talked at length about this in other threads and without getting into the objective/subjective thing again, there is more to reality and the universe than merely physical objective material things.
Part of what we are talking about in this thread is mind over matter and the mind and will enabling our bodies to do that which is beyound it's "normal" abilities. There simply is no way to explain what these people can do or make there bodies do in a purely physical or physilogical way. The mind and chi, the life force within, is what allows these things to happen. It is not a trick nor magic but focus and control. I have seen some of these thing happen with my own eyes and have don't a few simple things myself. It is real. It does happen and it is not illusion or delussion.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You keep saying that as if you have some kind of proof, please show it!! otherwise, accept that mabey it does happen, and you just haven't figured it out yet, nor how it occurs.
My apologies. I've explained this point numerous times on other threads, and just assumed most would remember what I'd said before...
btw, Dennett brings out this same point in Consciousness Explained...
P1: Any interaction occuring between physical objects is a "physical interaction".
P2: Any interaction occuring between non-physical objects is a "non-physical interaction".
P3: If a non-physical entity wished to interact with a physical entity, there would have to be an intermediary between the two realms that was neither physical nor non-physical (since a physical intermediary wouldn't be any help since one of the entities is already physical, and the same reasoning applies to a non-physical intermediary).
C: Therefore, a non-physical entity cannot interact with a physical one.
As it is, I omitted P4, which is that there can be no entity that is neither physical nor non-physical, since anything that is not physical is, by default, non-physical. However, this appears to me as much too self-evident for me to add it as a proposition without insulting someone's intelligence [;)].
Originally posted by Royce
What you say would be true, Mentat, if we were purely physical beings; but, we are not just physical but mental and spiritual beings.
We have physical bodies, subjective minds and spirits or souls. All of these interact. We have talked at length about this in other threads and without getting into the objective/subjective thing again, there is more to reality and the universe than merely physical objective material things.
This is, to me, a completely unfounded assumption. No offense, but do you really think it is correct to just state these as "truths", when so many, very intelligent, people and I disagree with those supposed "truths"? I don't know, but it just seems like added assumptions with no purpose...
Part of what we are talking about in this thread is mind over matter and the mind and will enabling our bodies to do that which is beyound it's "normal" abilities. There simply is no way to explain what these people can do or make there bodies do in a purely physical or physilogical way. The mind and chi, the life force within, is what allows these things to happen.
First off, there are indeed explanations (I don't know how to explain all of them, but I'm sure somebody does) that fit into a Materialistic paradigm.
But, more importantly, as per deductive logic, along with scientific reasoning on the matter, if these things (mind and chi) really had an effect on the physical realm, then they themselves would also (by default) have to be physical.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec3-03, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) P1: Any interaction occuring between physical objects is a "physical interaction".
P2: Any interaction occuring between non-physical objects is a "non-physical interaction".
P3: If a non-physical entity wished to interact with a physical entity, there would have to be an intermediary between the two realms that was neither physical nor non-physical (since a physical intermediary wouldn't be any help since one of the entities is already physical, and the same reasoning applies to a non-physical intermediary).
C: Therefore, a non-physical entity cannot interact with a physical one.
As it is, I omitted P4, which is that there can be no entity that is neither physical nor non-physical, since anything that is not physical is, by default, non-physical. However, this appears to me as much too self-evident for me to add it as a proposition without insulting someone's intelligence [;)]. (SNoP)
So like what??, light (non physical) CANNOT interact with me?? Huh?? What??? (physical)
Aside from that (Don't care what Dennett says!) find me a "non physical entity" to prove your point please
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So like what??, light (non physical) CANNOT interact with me?? Huh?? What??? (physical)
Mr. Parsons, light is physical, it's just not material.
Aside from that (Don't care what Dennett says!) find me a "non physical entity" to prove your point please
I can't find you a non-physical entity. In order to "find" such a thing, I'd have to be able to either see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. Since all of these are interactions, and my deduction on the previous post shows that we could not interact, I can never prove this to you empirically, merely logically.
Mentat, There is no proof of your P3 above and plenty of evidence that the opposite is true; therefore, his/your conclusion is in error. As before thought, emotions, mind, consciousness are all nonphysical subjective things yet they all interact with our phgysical bodies everyday every second or we would not be living human beings. Via our bodies we interact with physical reality. This is so obvious to me that I can not understand your unwilliness to accept this as true.
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat, There is no proof of your P3 above and plenty of evidence that the opposite is true; therefore, his/your conclusion is in error.
P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms. How else do you propose interaction take place? This intermediary couldn't be physical because a physical entity wishing to interact with a non-physical one would be no better-off in this endeavor for having a physical extension...and the same reasoning applies to non-physical entities trying to interact with physical ones.
Where is the flaw?
As before thought, emotions, mind, consciousness are all nonphysical subjective things yet they all interact with our phgysical bodies everyday every second or we would not be living human beings.
First off, you have not proven that any of those things are non-physical, and Dennett (along with Edelman, Calving, LeDoux, and many others working in the field of consciousness and the self) has proposed a reasonable theory that allows all of the them to be completely material functions. Don't state things as definite truths, Royce, you were the one that told me that.
Secondly, why wouldn't we be living human beings if we weren't interacting with some non-physical entities?
Via our bodies we interact with physical reality. This is so obvious to me that I can not understand your unwilliness to accept this as true.
Much as I cannot understand your unwillingness to question it. Especially in light of my having proposed a deductively valid argument against it.
"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.
If pure thought or consciousness is material then all is materialism and materialism loses its meaning. Materialism becomes universe or reality. If it can be shown that the spirit and/or soul is emergent then we can tie it all together in the philosophy of everything.
To me these ideas are merely constructs to support the materialistic view of reality. They have no validity of their own and ignore far to much that is known to be real.
Mumeishi
Dec3-03, 03:03 PM
but your starting to get me confused as to when your joking and when your serious .
Yes, that's the art. Sorry, mate.
Mumeishi
Dec3-03, 03:19 PM
"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function.
No it doesn't.
There is a lot of misunderstanding of quantum physics. The original version of the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM suggested that consciousness collapses the wave function. Not only are there a number of equally valid interpretations, which avoid the paradoxes (eg Schrodingers cat) and begged questions of that interpretation, but the CI itself has been modified so that the the collapse occurs when the 'particle' (not really a particle at all, but a really small wave) interacts with other 'particles', ie. when it hits a detector screen. A superposition of states would thus have to be kept in isolation in the same way as a pair of entangled particles.
Modern quantum physicics simply doesn't use the conciousness idea.
But especially after the publication of 'the Tao of the New Physics' and other silliness that followed, a lot of misty-eyed new age types took on board this idea as they felt it validated their belief that there is no objective reality and everything is illusion/ mind and yes, fairies are real if only you believe in them.
These 'types' (if I may generalise and stereotype) don't keep up with new ideas and most of them probably wouldn't take any notice of new ideas that invalidated their belief system anyway, so the idea has stuck. I suppose it has become a scientific myth.
I beg to differ, Mumeishi. According to what I am reading it hasn't been decided yet and there is evidence that consciousness does indeed collapse a wave. We have gone around and around on this subject in previous threads and I'm not going to go into it again. It seems to depend on whose book you read. If your interested look it up in the archives.
Mumeishi
Dec3-03, 04:04 PM
Of course the true interpretation of QM is undecided - that's what I said. And thus its unsafe to conclude anything magical about consciousness from it. I don't really care what the archives say - I would use a well-researched, up-to-date book to settle that one, not the consensus of Physics Forum posters.
What evidence?
No, we can't come to any conclusions; but it opens an interesting door to the possiblity that consciousness does interact directly with the physical and is more than just an emergent property of the brain.
Mumeishi
Dec3-03, 04:08 PM
What evidence?
Look at the thread "Clarification of QM" in the philosophy archives. Flipton gave some links to some current experiments on this subject.
Mumeishi
Dec3-03, 04:13 PM
Thanks. I will.
Iacchus32
Dec3-03, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Royce
"P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms." This is what I disagree with, that an intermediary is necessary for the physical and nonphysical to interact. This has been shown in quantum mechanics. Consciousness collapses the wave function. And yet there's no point in mentioning a spiritual dimension, if in fact there are no spirits that actually dwell there. This is why I suggest there are two domains, the spiritual domain (where actual spirits dwell), and the material domain, which is the "temporal physical plane" we live in now. Whereas between the two there must exist some sort of energy barrier or membrane, by which the design/intent/motive (and hence spirit) passes through, to articulate the material ...
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec3-03, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Mr. Parsons, light is physical, it's just not material.
Usually physical means tangible, "light" (EMR) is not tangible, even though you can feel its resultant interaction with you
I can't find you a non-physical entity. Humm you ego doesn't count??? HUH?? In order to "find" such a thing, I'd have to be able to either see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or feel it. Since all of these are interactions, and my deduction on the previous post shows that we could not interact, I can never prove this to you empirically, merely logically.
If what you tell, after[ b], is true, then your original premise is flawed, inasmuch as it is based upon assumtion(s) of non realities!
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec3-03, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) P3 is that there would be an intermediary necessary between the two realms. How else do you propose interaction take place? This intermediary couldn't be physical because a physical entity wishing to interact with a non-physical one would be no better-off in this endeavor for having a physical extension...and the same reasoning applies to non-physical entities trying to interact with physical ones. Where is the flaw? (SNoP)
The intermediary medium could very easily be the medium of energy that floods the universe, it is called EMR.........a spectral (non-physical) entity could communicate to you (a Physical entity) through the medium of the energy that permeates all space surrounding matter.
Mumeishi
Dec4-03, 09:00 AM
I can't find any of these articles - can you point me to them please?
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The intermediary medium could very easily be the medium of energy that floods the universe, it is called EMR.........a spectral (non-physical) entity could communicate to you (a Physical entity) through the medium of the energy that permeates all space surrounding matter.
Not if all space surrounding matter is physical (which Relativity dictates that it is). If all of space is physical, then you are using a physical medium, and I already exposed the folly of this approach in previous posts.
btw, it doesn't help at all for the space to be non-physical either, since it would then fall into the folly of non-physical mediums, also pointed out in previous posts.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Usually physical means tangible, "light" (EMR) is not tangible, even though you can feel its resultant interaction with you
Not really relevant, since light is composed of wavicles, and is thus physical. However, a concise definition of "physical" is really unnecessary for this particular logical deduction.
Humm you ego doesn't count??? HUH??
My what?
If what you tell, after[ b], is true, then your original premise is flawed, inasmuch as it is based upon assumtion(s) of non realities!
First off, the fact that I can't find one says nothing about their existence, merely about their ability to interact with a physical being such as myself (I can't find you a blackhole either, can I?).
Secondly, there needn't actually be non-physical entities for their to be deduction as to what their limitations would be if they existed.
Finally, usual philosophers of the mind have postulated that the mind is a non-physical entity. This is what caused Dennett to explain that a non-physical entity could not interact with a physical one, since this precludes the old ideas from being true, and necessitates a more Materialistic approach.
Quick question since you seem to know so "much" what is physical and what in the "nonphysical.?What decides what is what? Are you phyusical or non physical? thease are all words we use to describe things we are not even sure of.What if are defination of "physical" was wrong???? are humans physical or non physical? in "reality" we apear to be "physical but has this whole thing started what is reality?we cannot determine what physical and non physical or if they can interact or not before we even know the thing they exist is.well WHAT IS REALITY?answer that fully then we can decided if physical or non physical can interact.
Mumeishi
Dec4-03, 02:10 PM
Proposed non-physical entities are generally classed as metaphysics. The modern physical description of reality doesn't seem to need such entities for its explanations to work. If there are such entities they are undetectable and thus, for all human purposes, nonexistent - they have no effect on our reality.
It seems to me though that the (very successful) reductionist strategy of studying things at a very small scale is missing or at least de-emphasising the way that things are put together.
The aspects of reality that were once though of as non-physical - thought, consciousness, perhaps culture - are organisational or informational properties of physical systems. Such systems, although they use physical media could in principle use a virtual medium inside a computer (although that ultimately would have to use a physical medium). In theory, at least, the human mind could be uploaded to a computer of the right sort. This might be the source of Descartes sense of not being identical to his body.
Perhaps, the non-physical that you seek is not identical to the physical, to individual electrons and atoms, but neither is it non-physical - it is a property of the physical - an organisational order that could be r4eplicated or propagated into any appropriate physical medium.
This, perhaps, was the kernel of truth in my previous 'jokes' about TCP/IP and ethernet connectivity between physical and nonphysical.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec4-03, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
Not if all space surrounding matter is physical (which Relativity dictates that it is). If all of space is physical, then you are using a physical medium, and I already exposed the folly of this approach in previous posts.
btw, it doesn't help at all for the space to be non-physical either, since it would then fall into the folly of non-physical mediums, also pointed out in previous posts.
And by this (lovely) statement, your premise becomes the Folly....do you realize that?
BTW it isn't either "physical" (Not tactile) or "non-physical", (clearly something is there) it is energetic/EMR.
You do not even know wht reality is so how can you say that " If there are such entities they are undetectable and thus, for all human purposes, nonexistent - they have no effect on our reality." if you do not even know what reality is? you cannot talk about what physical or non physical beings can do to reality unless you know what reality is .answer what reality exacly is then we can continue the discusion of what physical and non physical beings can do to reality
Mumeishi
Dec5-03, 08:09 AM
To define whether something is physical or non-physical, I need to know what those terms mean. I don't need to know what the ultimate nature of reality is.
To determine whether a card you are looking at is a diamond or a spade, you need to know what those terms mean and how to differentiate between them. Or do you think that you also need to know the 'ultimate nature of reality' to answer that question too?
you make a good point with the card bit......one problem before you can speak of the type of card you first must know what a card is..and the game you are playing in this case the game and what a card is reality and spade and diamond are physical and non physical what would be the point of knowing what a diamond or spade is if you do not even know what a card is?in this case what would be the point of knowing what physical and nonphysical beings can do if we do not even know what reality is?
Common saying:
Its better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and prove it!
This goes for everyone, including myself... So I've come to be the next fool!
Wolf, none of us could ever give you the absolute correct response to your original question of "What is reality". Reality simply is whatever you make it out to be and it is forever changing. When you were younger and thought of things in such a way that gave reality a certain kind of sense, much of the world seemed magical in many ways. Now, you've evidently traveled a far way in a short time through your extensive training and honing of your personal chi. I'd say that a lot of the things that you experience as an individual don't exactly "compute" with your previous notions of reality. The fact is that you are coming into a time within your life where you are "breaking" the "laws" that constructed your early life. This leaves you with a strong confused feeling and troubles your ego, because most of the world does not understand how to step their minds outside of their own built-up realities.
We all search for clarity on what makes sense to us as individuals, yet where we are having so much trouble is that this has been going on since the beginning (whatever that may be). Ever since we (humans) began asking "WHY", we have sought answers and have come to conclusions or acceptance from somewhere within ourselves. Right now, we seem to be traveling in so many directions that it has become difficult for us to get back on the same sheet of music and re-analyze/rethink the basic building blocks from a more nuetral perspective.
What is Reality!? I have no clue! Just ideas, thoughts, experience, fading memories, hopes, etc... And none of them seem to matter to anyone else but myself! I have to find peace with that. And so do you! We may be fighting a similar battle, but overall... You're on your own within your personal reality!
I hope you make it to be a rather nice place.
--------------------------------
I try to think of everything, only to find that I never KNOW anything![;)]
Mumeishi
Dec5-03, 08:33 AM
Our understanding of such terms is necessarily pragmatic. I understand what a card is for all practical purposes. Similarly we understand what a physical object is, according to our best, most impartial and accurate testing, whatever 'physical' ultimately turns our to mean.
(superstring/M-theory looks promising)
There is simply no evidence of people breaking the laws of physics or performing acts which are inexplicable in physical scientific terms - whatever the fundamental nature of the universe turns out to be.
That's the bottom line my friend.
In the begining i wanted to know others beleives on what they think reality is
Mumeishi
Dec5-03, 08:49 AM
I don't think its a meaningful question. It depends how you define 'reality', so its circular. Reality is that which exists.
Some people define reality in phenomenological terms, in other words it includes things usually classified as psychological events. My criticism of that definition would be that a word is useless and meaningless if it does not discriminate between one thing and other things. Thus, for 'reality' to have a meaning, there has to be something which is non-reality.
What is non-reality? Do any things exist that do not exist? No, by logical necessity. So the only meaningful use of the trem 'unreal' is to apply to such things as 'Santa Clause', 'fairies' etc, which exist as psychological and sociological phenomena, but not as physical objective phenomena in a direct, literal way. All psychological and sociological phenomena exist ultimately as physical phenomena because they are based on physical media, brains, TV etc, but they do not necessarily refer to entities existing physically in the way they are imagined to exist.
In terms of what physical reality ultimately consists of I would suggest again that superstring and M-theory look promising. Everything may ultimately consist of a sort of symphony of vibrating multidimensional strings and membranes. But it will take decades to test this theory.
If you decide that 'eveything is reality' then the word is redundant and you have no use for it. Perhaps in this state you could be said to be 'enlightened' in the Buddhist sense, but you would have sacrificed your ability to discriminate between subjective and objective. For those who seek to build upon understanding of that which exists independently of our perceptions, this attitude is useless. Indeed, this 'magical' sort of existence is the 'primitive' state which science has pulled away from in order to improve our understanding.
your right there is no "proof" but has Hegira
that is because people keep to them selves in there own reality.
Look all i am saying is all thease rules of physica and more commonly known as "reality" are false or need to be improved or added to because thease rules are not as solid as stated by physist there are force that can be honed by people through chi that can break thease "laws" and as far as i have seen there has been no scientific proof of this.i beleive there is no scientific proof of this because scientist or any one else that thinks scientifically ignore even the remote posablity of thease things happening or will argue that what they are seing is something else.Something like you do in one of your post you tried to even argue that they all had a "lotgical explanation" and that they where not what i was saying but something else.people will not except what we can do because science has not proven it.And since science has not proven it then it is not excepted and science has not proven it because they ignore it or the only way they will except it is if they change what we say you did this by saying something like "your where not floating it just seamed it because you had not stopped moving forward in the air" that was not excatly what you said put it is good enough.what i said was not "science" or not reconized by science so you tried to make me see it a diferent way a scientific way...Btw when you asked why we just dont prove ourselves well that is easily answered it is because we would not be excepted.we would be seen has "wicthes" where in the medival days.'TIME IS A RIVER AND HISTORY REAPEATS IT'S SELF" that is still true today in the times of medival it was "witches" now it is us.And for a closing statement i will say again that the only reason scince has not proven chi or the things i do i because science has never excepted us if they did then we would work with them to prove what we do scientifically.But beforethat we need to be excepted by science and then and only then we could prove ourselves Just to make society happy because beleive me we are quite happy living on our own we do not beleive we need to prove ourselves.
Mumeishi
Dec5-03, 09:24 AM
only if you can repeat these feats and record or measure what has occurred, can it be acetained whether the understood laws of physics need to be adjusted.
It may only be your understanding of what 'is supposed' to be possible that is inaccurate.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec5-03, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
(SNIP) My what? Your EGO (an Acronym{?} Everyones Got One!)
Secondly, there needn't actually be non-physical entities for their to be deduction as to what their limitations would be if they existed. Now this is a statment of Folly if I had ever heard one, "deduction"?? Based upon nothing?? or whatever your imagination can come up with?? "Imaginary" or not?? this is not an answer........
Finally, usual philosophers of the mind have postulated that the mind is a non-physical entity. This is what caused Dennett to explain that a non-physical entity could not interact with a physical one, since this precludes the old ideas from being true, and necessitates a more Materialistic approach. (SNoP)
Yup! O'Key Dokey, then let him be the very first one to Demonstrate that he can remove only the water from an ameoba and then put the water back into it and get that (silly) MECHANISM to go again!
"Explain it" he might have, proven his explaination to be the truth, doubt that cause when you take the water out of any single Living cell, the "Wave Function Collapses" and whatever it was that was in there that was the "power/force/motivator" (of life itself) is now gone.....till someone can prove differently, this stands as a proof against the Idea of 'simple materialism' being the "Source of Life Itself"
Originally posted by Mumeishi
only if you can repeat these feats and record or measure what has occurred, can it be acetained whether the understood laws of physics need to be adjusted.
It may only be your understanding of what 'is supposed' to be possible that is inaccurate.
This last week The Discovery Channal had a program on called Extreme Martial Arts in which they showed many of the things that wolf is talking about and scientifically measured the amount of force some of the blows and kicks actually had. That is until one kick broke the measuring device.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And by this (lovely) statement, your premise becomes the Folly....do you realize that?
BTW it isn't either "physical" (Not tactile) or "non-physical", (clearly something is there) it is energetic/EMR.
Energy is physical, Parsons. Where've you been for the last century of scientific development (no offense, but Mumeishi already touched on this, and so did I; according to modern science, anything composed of wavicles or spacetime, is physical)?
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Your EGO (an Acronym{?} Everyones Got One!)
But what is it?
Humble point of advice: It is probably not a good idea to post your replies inside of my quote-box, since I then have to copy/paste them into the reply-box in order to respond. Just a thought.
Now this is a statment of Folly if I had ever heard one, "deduction"?? Based upon nothing?? or whatever your imagination can come up with?? "Imaginary" or not?? this is not an answer........
Think, Parsons! The fact that some idealists postulate the existence of something that doesn't meet the standards of being called "physical" is enough for logic to be used as to the relationship that such things would have if they existed at all (and it doesn't matter whether they do or not, so long as someone has postulated that they do).
Yup! O'Key Dokey, then let him be the very first one to Demonstrate that he can remove only the water from an ameoba and then put the water back into it and get that (silly) MECHANISM to go again!
What does this got to do with the price of eggs?
btw, with all due respect, there's a place for sarcasm, and this isn't it. I've been hoping that your answers would get more serious as the discussion progressed, but this isn't happening. When one uses sarcasm in every post, they give the message that they don't care about what they are saying but are posting just to be pain in the neck. I don't think that this is the case with you, but that's the vibe your giving off.
"Explain it" he might have, proven his explaination to be the truth, doubt that cause when you take the water out of any single Living cell, the "Wave Function Collapses" and whatever it was that was in there that was the "power/force/motivator" (of life itself) is now gone.....till someone can prove differently, this stands as a proof against the Idea of 'simple materialism' being the "Source of Life Itself"
I still don't get this whole "water out of the living thing" problem...he never said anything about taking water out of anything.
Mumeishi
Dec6-03, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Royce
This last week The Discovery Channal had a program on called Extreme Martial Arts in which they showed many of the things that wolf is talking about and scientifically measured the amount of force some of the blows and kicks actually had. That is until one kick broke the measuring device.
I've seen people do some amazing things too. And with martial arts training I became able to do many new things too. I've never said that martial arts training cannot allow you to do some things which ordinary people cannot do. What I said was that these abilities are explicable in terms of mastery of ordinary physical forces and that the invokation of mysterious 'chi' energies is uneccessary and unevidenced.
This measuring device could not have been very strong.
We are bound by ordinary physics and this puts limits on what a martial artist can do. He cannot deflect an oncoming vehicle, or defeat an army in an open fight or an elephant or fly or leap 50 feet like in Crouching Tiger. Its just myth and fantasy.
I'd put money on a good boxer, Vale Tudo expert or Thai boxer rather than a Shaolin monk or karate black belt.
Originally posted by Mumeishi
I've seen people do some amazing things too. And with martial arts training I became able to do many new things too. I've never said that martial arts training cannot allow you to do some things which ordinary people cannot do. What I said was that these abilities are explicable in terms of mastery of ordinary physical forces and that the invokation of mysterious 'chi' energies is uneccessary and unevidenced.
This measuring device could not have been very strong.
We are bound by ordinary physics and this puts limits on what a martial artist can do. He cannot deflect an oncoming vehicle, or defeat an army in an open fight or an elephant or fly or leap 50 feet like in Crouching Tiger. Its just myth and fantasy.
I'd put money on a good boxer, Vale Tudo expert or Thai boxer rather than a Shaolin monk or karate black belt.
Another way in which the reality of causes could perhaps be denied is to say that physics is only the discovery of laws that relate events, not the explanation of the properties of things that lead to these events: that is, that physics is (or should be) only concerned with effects, not with causes. It is agreed that all observations are effects of interactions, but it does seem an unnecessarily severe restriction not to permit physicists to speculate on the causal properties of what they are examining, nor to permit them to postulate, for example, potential energy apart from kinetic energy.
While I find Mumeishi's speech very on point and correct, I find this also a bit dispostional. Meaning that with new advances in technology some of the things that are fantasy could be done with physical properties from ourselves. Like we could unlock a whole other reality unknown to the matter of the mind. Instead of mind over matter; matter over mind, possibly.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec6-03, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Mentat
But what is it? To use your responce, already been posted.......(by myself)
Humble point of advice: It is probably not a good idea to post your replies inside of my quote-box, since I then have to copy/paste them into the reply-box in order to respond. Just a thought.
Yes, your right, just a thought!
Think, Parsons! The fact that some idealists postulate the existence of something that doesn't meet the standards of being called "physical" is enough for logic to be used as to the relationship that such things would have if they existed at all (and it doesn't matter whether they do or not, so long as someone has postulated that they do).
Didn't dispute that, but all you end up discussing is/are "belief systems", nothing more, nothing less............no proof otherwise!
What does this got to do with the price of eggs? What an astounding evasion, aren't you just the smart little fellow....(That is sarcasm!)
btw, with all due respect, Really ? where? there's a place for sarcasm, and this isn't it. I've been hoping that your answers would get more serious as the discussion progressed, but this isn't happening. When one uses sarcasm in every post, If you find that from me (in my postings...Nah! rare enough) then you are placing something in there that simply isn't there, it is from you then....NOT me they give the message that they don't care about what they are saying but are posting just to be pain in the neck. Quote: "With all due respect..."....see above I don't think that this is the case with you, but that's the vibe your giving off.
I still don't get this whole "water out of the living thing" problem...he never said anything about taking water out of anything. Clearly.....
Perhaps when you figure out the water out of the living thing thing then perhaps we can continue, till then, as your judgment of me is waaaay more a reflection of you, then me, you have some things to do?????
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec6-03, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Mumeishi
(SNIP) There is simply no evidence of people breaking the laws of physics or performing acts which are inexplicable in physical scientific terms - whatever the fundamental nature of the universe turns out to be.
That's the bottom line my friend. (SNoP)
And yet you seem to have wanted insights into metaphysical realms/understandings/ideas but all that anyone could offer would be subjective testimony, after all that is the nature of the word metaphysical, you ask for something that, once given to yuo, you would wish to "de-bunk"......if you really want for metaphysical understandings, read the Bible New testament, the Dharma Pada(sp?), The Bagavaghita (sp?) as they (and all of the rest of them, the scriptual/holy/spiritual Books) have all of the 'belief system knowledge' that you (might) need.
If you would wish to know insight into 'illusory'...current HS physics sorta, as "Three state of Matter", well matter is solid, that is its definition, and all of the atoms, whatever state they occupy (by comprising it) are 'solids', so the actual states of matter are really matter relationships, "Occluded amorphic" is 'gaseous', "Coherant amorphic" is 'viscuous/liquid', and "Coherant Morph" as 'solidified'....why?
Well I had put it in another thread a while back, the Gravitational boundary acts atomically outside the shell in gases, at the shells surface in liquids, and within the shells structure for solids, as per the Math abbreviations 1/r2, 1/r, 1/{\sqrt{r}} , respectively.
Does that help?
Mumeishi
Dec7-03, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Jeebus
Another way in which the reality of causes could perhaps be denied is to say that physics is only the discovery of laws that relate events, not the explanation of the properties of things that lead to these events: that is, that physics is (or should be) only concerned with effects, not with causes. It is agreed that all observations are effects of interactions, but it does seem an unnecessarily severe restriction not to permit physicists to speculate on the causal properties of what they are examining, nor to permit them to postulate, for example, potential energy apart from kinetic energy.
Perhaps, until we have (if ever) a TOE all out theories can do is recognise patterns and make descriptions in terms of incompletely described entities. Not sure what you mean. They do postulate potential energy - potential energy is the other main form of energy apart from the various forms of kinetic energy. Or was this just a misleading choice of phrase? If so, I'd suggest there could conceivbly be other sorts of energy, but that neither myself nor the scientific community is excluding such possibilities. Its just that there is no need with current evidence and theories to postulate such energies. The relatively recent postulation of 'dark energy' to account for a discrepancy between existing theory and available evidence shows the willingness of the scientific community to do this. However, wild speculation unsupported by evidence is generally regarded as a waste of time.
Originally posted by Jeebus
While I find Mumeishi's speech very on point and correct, I find this also a bit dispostional. Meaning that with new advances in technology some of the things that are fantasy could be done with physical properties from ourselves. Like we could unlock a whole other reality unknown to the matter of the mind. Instead of mind over matter; matter over mind, possibly.
Yes, one day we could indeed be able to fly using 'chi energy'. But since there is no evidence, the possibility is rather remote and speculation about it rather pointless.
Mumeishi
Dec7-03, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And yet you seem to have wanted insights into metaphysical realms/understandings/ideas but all that anyone could offer would be subjective testimony, after all that is the nature of the word metaphysical, you ask for something that, once given to yuo, you would wish to "de-bunk"......if you really want for metaphysical understandings, read the Bible New testament, the Dharma Pada(sp?), The Bagavaghita (sp?) as they (and all of the rest of them, the scriptual/holy/spiritual Books) have all of the 'belief system knowledge' that you (might) need.
Which one should I pick, given that they contradict one another? And what gives you the justification to exclude the Old Testament? Because its inconsistent with your own belief system?
Some of these texts might contain some wisdom and some truth, but inclusion in an old book and part of a cultural phenomenon characterised by mass-conformity and obendience, is far from a guarantee of truth.
I don't think there is anything inherently untestable about something that is metaphysical. If something affects our reality its effects can be measured.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
If you would wish to know insight into 'illusory'...current HS physics sorta, as "Three state of Matter", well matter is solid, that is its definition, and all of the atoms, whatever state they occupy (by comprising it) are 'solids', so the actual states of matter are really matter relationships, "Occluded amorphic" is 'gaseous', "Coherant amorphic" is 'viscuous/liquid', and "Coherant Morph" as 'solidified'....why?
Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Well I had put it in another thread a while back, the Gravitational boundary acts atomically outside the shell in gases, at the shells surface in liquids, and within the shells structure for solids, as per the Math abbreviations 1/r2, 1/r, 1/{\sqrt{r}} , respectively.
Does that help?
Gravitational shell boundaries, if there is such a thing, is not something I know about. But I fail to see how this shows , in spite of overwhelming scientific opinion to the contrary, that atoms are 'solids'.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec7-03, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Mumeishi
Which one should I pick, given that they contradict one another? And what gives you the justification to exclude the Old Testament? It was ONLY a recomendation, NOT an order, ya know "a suggestion", not an "instruction" Because its inconsistent with your own belief system?
Some of these texts might contain some wisdom and some truth, but inclusion in an old book and part of a cultural phenomenon characterised by mass-conformity and obendience, is far from a guarantee of truth. No guarantee of any provability of truth in metaphysics, hence "belief systems"
I don't think there is anything inherently untestable about something that is metaphysical. If something affects our reality its effects can be measured. humm apparently(?) you seem to miss what 'metaphysical' means, "Beyond Physics" approximates it well enough, so it is beyond (present abilities) "testablity" as for affecting reality, ideas do that, with no physical/testable aspect to them........illusory and metaphysical.....
Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. Hummm...well all matter is comprised of atoms, they are, for all practical intents and purposes, quite solid, but it is a perception of scale, (no question of that) and at the scale we live at, we can easily conclude that they are amazingly solid
Gravitational shell boundaries, if there is such a thing, is not something I know about. But I fail to see how this shows , in spite of overwhelming scientific opinion to the contrary, that atoms are ("appear as"...as I said above 'scale') 'solids'.
Atoms behave as a solid no matter what state of matter they are in, that is the definition of 'matter' itself, solidity (AKA "boundary definition"...not to be confused with a "gravitational boundary") of a measurable mass...........
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec7-03, 11:30 AM
Originaly posted by Mumeishe
(SNIP) Atoms are not 'solids', this has been explained to you twice now. (SNoP)
Humm, atoms are comprised of Protons, and the Protons "Expectancy of duration of Solidity" is roughed out at 10somewhere's in the fourties...(like me, he hee) Years! like about three times the current age of the Universe, roughly! and wasn't it your definition of "solid" that stated it "held it's shape"(?) is this Solid enough for you to accept the Idea of Solidity?
Mumeishi
Dec7-03, 03:45 PM
You're a stubborn old fool aren't you? I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Anyone reading these threads can make up their own minds.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec7-03, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Mumeishi
You're a stubborn old fool aren't you? I'm not going to waste any more time discussing this. Anyone reading these threads can make up their own minds.
Clearly you invalidate your own opinion, and I can rest well knowing that you will no longer be "wasting your time" (precious that that is) nor attempting to influence anyone 'unduly' to your "point of view" that seems to think that there is nothing solid in the universe, contrary to the evidence........I'd probably rather be a 'stubborn old fool' who is actually right, then someone so "Arrogantly impudent" who is going to continue in their own "self delusional path of self decreed self righteousness" when the evidence (Nature, AKA physical reality, 'The Truth' as objective {et Al}) clearly tells them that they are wrong!
radagast
Dec8-03, 02:49 PM
I think Mumeishi merely expressed the futility in bashing his head against a wall. Considering I've never seen you give one inch, on any subject, I consider that decision wise.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec8-03, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by radagast
I think Mumeishi merely expressed the futility in bashing his head against a wall. Considering I've never seen you give one inch, on any subject, I consider that decision wise.
Firstly, Thank you for the Honesty, it is appreciated, but post-premised with the notation that the emboldened statment is simply evidence that you haven't read everything I have written, that's for sure..........
Well then...
I AM COMPLETELY HUMILIATED BY ALL OF YOU!!!
Much Love and Appreciation,
Hegira
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec9-03, 06:00 AM
Just a thought radagast, what exactly is it that you would wish me to "Give an inch" upon? the idea (or reality) of a proton's "time of existence"? or its solidity in that time??, is that what (you think) I need to give an inch upon??
radagast
Dec9-03, 07:34 AM
Mr. Parsons,
There are many topics discussed on these forums. Others have altered my views on certain topics. I've seen many who acknowledged points made by others. I have lost and acknowledged defeat in certain discussions, and seen this with others. I've never seen this of you. When a person is intransigent, on all points, debate is futile. While no insult intended by this, it is why I try to avoid debate with you.
You are correct that I've not seen everything you've written, so my views could be quite skewed.
I wouldn't have brought it up, but you did ask.
radagast
Dec9-03, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by Hegira
Well then...
I AM COMPLETELY HUMILIATED BY ALL OF YOU!!!
Well, If I've been instrumental in this, I apologise. Usually I am only skilled in humiliating myself.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec9-03, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP) I wouldn't have brought it up, but you did ask. (SNoP)
Yes, I did, and thanks for the honest responce, but it askes a question within me as to just what is the piont you are trying to make concerning debating, as in the manner in which I proceed in scientific matters is respective of the "Currently Known", or "Currently Available Knowledge" which is why the Philosophers of old would have debated 'Solidity' to death, None of them had any proof to the 'pro', or the 'contrary', (No particle accelerators back then, so they simply "didn't know", clearly did "Wonder", produced all of those works doing just that) hence it was a wonderful time to engage in "Thought gaming" in debate.........but today is different, we have particle accelerators, we know that protons last a LOOOOOooooooooooooooooong time, we see clearly that the universe in it's poresentation to us from whatever source is presenting us with the idea of "Solidity" (Ergo the reason why you can! bang your head on a brick/concrete wall) in correlation to the statement of Einstien; ".....It is just a very persistant illusion" so we can reconcile the idea's of quarks being 'mushy', (and dissapearing really fast) with the idea of a Proton being 'solid', in recognizing that in assemblage they are in a very solid and long lasting "relationship" (if you wish) built exclusively to present "us" (humanity and any other self aware lifeforms in the Universe) with the "Idea of Solidity".
That said, this is not a discovery of mine, (the protons 'time' of longevity) lots of very intelligent people, long before me, (and well during my existence) have toiled, and worked, to produce these kinds of "knowledge proofs" that are recognized as 'Valid proof(s)' inasmuch as they follow the rigors of Scientific study.......simple put, HEY!! they taught me the "right" (as opposed to "wrong"/"erroneous" {I suppose}) Answer! (it is those people who contsruct "The Giant" upon whose shoulders the vantage of perspective enables 'some' (few, till it's told) to see the rest of the way.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec9-03, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP) I have lost and acknowledged defeat in certain discussions, and seen this with others. I've never seen this of you. When a person is intransigent, on all points, debate is futile. While no insult intended by this, it is why I try to avoid debate with you. (SNIP)
Try looking here; My error (in learning) admitted! (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=9226&perpage=12&highlight=glass%20and%20liquid&pagenumber=2)....at least one of them there are 'others'.............but it isn't something to brag about(?), most people don't.......
I tend to agree with mr.parsons on the fact of being stuborn he has his own way of thinking and tends to not let others afect his opinion when expresing i do the same but that does not mean that no one can discuss their views without being insulted or insulting i have a very diferent way of thinking and i know what it is like for EVERYONE to argue your thoughts because they are diferent trust me i have a very metaphysical and phylosophical thoughts and EVERYONE argues my thoughts because they are not commom with others.
All I am asking is could you people just "talk" about your views without fighting just talk i am quite interested in reading thease post and replying to do them and discussing just not fighting i have teachers and other nieve fools for that
People,
This thread has been side-tracked. Can we get back to a discussion of the nature of "reality", please (while agreeing to be rational, and to take each new post as possibly correct before looking for what's wrong with it or how we can "block" it)?
As just stated that would be nice thenstead of argueing
anyway...............what do you beleive the true nature of reality is mr.parsons?
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec9-03, 08:56 PM
It is what you are experiancing, in your imagination, right now, the Sensual experiance of it. ('Sensual' in this instance, meaning; "the totality of all of the sense inputs acting/feeling as one".........same thing for me.)
It has a 'perception of flow' (time) inasmuch as it is persistent in its motion(s), as well.
does that help?
so you say it is perspective and perseption........interesting i have seen many people with this theory. I only know few with the beleive that it is a physical reresentation of energy and that when you feel gravity or another "physics force" (presure,tension etc) that is the energy following a certain patern of movement or action that the energy has or does.This theory also goes on further for one's own body and skills and knowledge.
Anyone reading this thread i would be very pleased to discuss other thoeries of reaity so please post your beleives.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec15-03, 07:39 PM
Given that all any of us have to relate 'the experience' is subjective testimony, trying to tell someone of the "Oneness of feeling" that is the experience of reality, given the differentiations that are the subtlties, of aging, in life, of learning, environment, all of what promotes (or inhibits) this type of experience, well, if you get there, great! if your are not there, yet, just do what all of the ones who got there did, keep trying...!
(P.S. And please remeber to have some fun while you are doing some of it, but not all of it...)
Originally posted by Wolf
Anyone reading this thread i would be very pleased to discuss other thoeries of reaity so please post your beleives.
What is reality? Reality is a physical construct of processes (not static entities), which are constantly in motion.
Reality is spiritual God. All else is manifestations of that spiritual reality and is illusion. Physical matter is the ulimate illusion as spirit is the ultimate reality.
Originally posted by Royce
Reality is spiritual God. All else is manifestations of that spiritual reality and is illusion. Physical matter is the ulimate illusion as spirit is the ultimate reality.
I'm not disputing, this is an actual question:
Why are we not conscious of the mind of God, if we are all mere extensions thereof?
Originally posted by Mentat
I'm not disputing, this is an actual question:
Why are we not conscious of the mind of God, if we are all mere extensions thereof?
We all are unconsciously aware of the mind of God and his mind touches ours all the time but we may not realize that it is God doing this. To become consciously aware we must look beyound the material everyday world with "altered states of consciousness" into "alternate realities". I use quotes because the terms while in common use are not really correct. An altered state of consciousness may mean a deep medatative state or simply a moment of quiet acceptance or contemplation.
There is only one reality so alternate realities is not the correct term. It is simply looking at reality a different way and seeing that which is beyond the mundane material reality of day to day life.
I offered my post as an alternative answer of yours to Wolf's question of what is reality.
Again matter, material, is the effect not the cause or source of all that is. You yourself have said that matter and enegry are different states or forms of the same thing, energy waves or fields. If this is the case, and it is, then why think that all that exists is or is a product of matter when matter itself is a product of energy. Rather than being a materialist wouldn't it be more appropriate to say you are an energyist, to coin a new term?
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec17-03, 07:24 PM
Uhmm don't you risk confuing the difference 'tween energies that demonstrate life's activities, from energy that constructs a rock?
Think that those energies are the same?
(you know the energies that grow all of the food!)
(No, peronally I do not argue a "different source" All/Omni=God=Truth, no problemo, but clearly, in Its presentation to US,it is diferentiated)
Mr. R B,
I don't risk it. I never claimed that all energy is the same. The term "energy is a generic term we apply to a non-material phenomenon that we can neither understand nor can define; but, we can detect and observe its effects. There are as many forms of energy as there are things in the universe.
A plant lives yet may contain and need many of the same things that the rock is made of; yet, it lives while the rock doesn't. Clearly it contains or is influenced by some form of energy or force that the rock does/is not.
Either its presentation or our perception of it is differentiated.
To see more clearly we must change the way we look as things and be willing to look at things differently. This is all I'm saying.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec18-03, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by Royce
Mr. R B, Uhmm, ya, it's R. P. Not B
I don't risk it. I never claimed that all energy is the same. The term "energy is a generic term we apply to a non-material phenomenon that we can neither understand nor can define; but, we can detect and observe its effects. There are as many forms of energy as there are things in the universe.
A plant lives yet may contain and need many of the same things that the rock is made of; yet, it lives while the rock doesn't. Clearly it contains or is influenced by some form of energy or force that the rock does/is not.
Either its presentation or our perception of it is differentiated.
To see more clearly we must change the way we look as things and be willing to look at things differently. This is all I'm saying. Hummm, I suspect that it is neither "presented to us", nor "a perception" (sorta) inasmuch as I susect that as an energy "it" is, simply put, invisible to us completely, ('completely' in this case means 'Absolutely un-measurable' too!) and this is the reason 'why' when we take the Water out of a cell, it dies, and cannot be "re'started" (as if it were a 'mechanical' thing) like a car (lead acid) battery which will basically turn itself off and on relative to us removing and replacing the acid...mechanically.
I suspect that, in the cell, the 'invisible' energy that is at work there, simply disappears from its "intersecting portal" (for lack of a better wording) when its 'supension sys.' (the water) is removed, hence we see "Death of the System", we don't know, neither can we prove, that the energy itself "died" or simply did return to some of other plain/dimension/universe(?).
Originally posted by Royce
We all are unconsciously aware of the mind of God and his mind touches ours all the time but we may not realize that it is God doing this. To become consciously aware we must look beyound the material everyday world with "altered states of consciousness" into "alternate realities". I use quotes because the terms while in common use are not really correct. An altered state of consciousness may mean a deep medatative state or simply a moment of quiet acceptance or contemplation.
There is only one reality so alternate realities is not the correct term. It is simply looking at reality a different way and seeing that which is beyond the mundane material reality of day to day life.
I offered my post as an alternative answer of yours to Wolf's question of what is reality.
Again matter, material, is the effect not the cause or source of all that is. You yourself have said that matter and enegry are different states or forms of the same thing, energy waves or fields. If this is the case, and it is, then why think that all that exists is or is a product of matter when matter itself is a product of energy. Rather than being a materialist wouldn't it be more appropriate to say you are an energyist, to coin a new term?
Well, Materialism actually refers to the belief that all things are physical, and energy is physical. I said (in response to Wolf) that reality is a physical construct. Anyway, doesn't your philosophy justify using drugs to reach altered states of consciousness? Also, do all altered states of consciousness bring you closer to the mind of God, or is there a specific state one should look for?
I have never used drugs so I casn not testify to their effectiveness. I personally wouldn't trust anything I saw or found while under the influence of drugs.
Meditation can bring use closer to the mind of God but what I realy think that is does is makes us conscious of our connection and oneness with reality as well as seeing and being in a different reality than we are use to seeing and being in during our everyday normal material lives. It is the same reality, there is only one, but we are able to percieve it differently. This different perception seems or feels more complete and more right than our normal reality.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec19-03, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Royce
I have never used drugs so I casn not testify to their effectiveness. I personally wouldn't trust anything I saw or found while under the influence of drugs.
Meditation can bring use closer to the mind of God but what I realy think that is does is makes us conscious of our connection and oneness with reality as well as seeing and being in a different reality than we are use to seeing and being in during our everyday normal material lives. It is the same reality, there is only one, but we are able to percieve it differently. This different perception seems or feels more complete and more right than our normal reality.
Given that it can be shown that food does effectively have "Drugging" effects, (Less obvious and/or intense) just as does nicotine affect the mind in a perported ability to focus better, sugar is know to affect brain function, (in very short and real times) all kinds of things affect the human brain, odors/aroma's have been suggested as study aids, the idea of a drug Increasing effectiveness is sorta wrong, it is just a different approach to a viewpoint.
For myself my 'sortie' started in a forest, Meditation on a rock in the woods, trying to subdue my own fear of just being there all alone, by rational means (sorta effective) and (mostly) emotive training, AKA Tranquility...It sounds weird sorta that I would offer the subjective testimony of a sense of the tree's living energy, their reflection of my fear back at me, (as if they could feel it from me, and they were, in turn, "fearful") repeated, till the point in time (Lotsa that passed) when I could enter the forest without fear of it, thus the reflection of the energies from within the trees, towards myself, became a completely different thing, nice! to the point where on "Soft-Breezy days" it was almost (or was it just my happiness inside me?) as if you could feel that the tress were "Happy" with this particular kind of weather*.....but that is all subjective testimony, has a quality that allows me to discount it completely (for your sake) so's as to ensure that we all stay on the page(s) (of what we know is provable) unless we intend a discourse upon metaphysics exclusively.....
*And a P.S. NO DRUGS USED THERE!
Mr.R.P.(sorry about the typo before)
I was going to say that I didn't use drugs other than caffine, nicotine, sugar, chocolate and occasionally alcohol but I left it out for brevity's sake.
Read about what you experienced brought to mind the Druids and others who thought or felt the all such thinks conainded or were spirits. To me what you experience is the oneness of all life and its interaction. In other threads I have related my experiences with raising tomatoes.
If we are in touch with our selves and life we become aware of the responses of plants etc and come to realize that they too in there own way are conscious and aware. I have said this before in other threads.
We may not want to get into metaphysics but I don't think that it can be avoided. Much of reality is subjective as well as much of it being spiritual. You will have no problem with me trying to make you prove subjective experiences. Anyway since all that exists is material or a product of material then subjectivity must also be material so Mentat should have no problem with it either.[;)]
Mentat,
There is no specfic state that we can try for.
Trying the the very opposite of what we are doing.
This is why I keep saying that we must be accepting. We quiten our minds and sit passively willing to listen and observe, willing to accept whatever we are shown or given. We let go and let happen whatever will happen. It is my understanding that we will be given that which we need and can accept and handle at the moment. We can contemplate something or nothing. We can have a specific question in mind; but, we cannot try to see or do or reach anything specific.
It is like a baby learning to walk. We start out learning to stand up without support not running across the room.
Originally posted by Royce
I have never used drugs so I casn not testify to their effectiveness. I personally wouldn't trust anything I saw or found while under the influence of drugs.
Meditation can bring use closer to the mind of God but what I realy think that is does is makes us conscious of our connection and oneness with reality as well as seeing and being in a different reality than we are use to seeing and being in during our everyday normal material lives. It is the same reality, there is only one, but we are able to percieve it differently. This different perception seems or feels more complete and more right than our normal reality.
But living in this "dream world" (if you'll forgive the term) could put one in danger of losing their common sense, could it not? Aside from this, what makes you think that this new reality is the right one instead of the one that we live our day-to-day lives in? Isn't that just what a person on drugs might think?
Originally posted by Royce
Mentat,
There is no specfic state that we can try for.
Trying the the very opposite of what we are doing.
This is why I keep saying that we must be accepting. We quiten our minds and sit passively willing to listen and observe, willing to accept whatever we are shown or given. We let go and let happen whatever will happen. It is my understanding that we will be given that which we need and can accept and handle at the moment. We can contemplate something or nothing. We can have a specific question in mind; but, we cannot try to see or do or reach anything specific.
It is like a baby learning to walk. We start out learning to stand up without support not running across the room.
Hmmm...but again I wonder, isn't this complacency and acceptance somewhat dangerous? Isn't it like a person under the influence of drugs, just accepting his "new reality" as being real?
One, it is not complacency, it is letting go and letting happen what will happen rather than trying to force thing to happen by our will while meditating.
Two, it does not do away with common sense but enhances it and brings understanding to why it is common sense.
Three, there is no danger as we know that it is true or false we know real from illusion and distraction. If you ever experience it you will know what I'm talking about.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec22-03, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by Royce
Mr.R.P.(sorry about the typo before) "No Problemo"...(thanks)
I was going to say that I didn't use drugs other than caffine, nicotine, sugar, chocolate and occasionally alcohol but I left it out for brevity's sake. Me too!
Read about what you experienced brought to mind the Druids and others who thought or felt the all such thinks conainded or were spirits. To me what you experience is the oneness of all life and its interaction. In other threads I have related my experiences with raising tomatoes.
If we are in touch with our selves and life we become aware of the responses of plants etc and come to realize that they too in there own way are conscious and aware. I have said this before in other threads.
We may not want to get into metaphysics but I don't think that it can be avoided. Much of reality is subjective as well as much of it being spiritual. You will have no problem with me trying to make you prove subjective experiences. Anyway since all that exists is material or a product of material then subjectivity must also be material so Mentat should have no problem with it either.[;)]
Thanks appreciate that but I would still stay away from the metaphysical that I know for personal reasons (that 'tree' post "caught up to me" in less then one day, God's Grace, "No Problemo" though....) and the simplicity that some of it is outside of the normal realm of thoughts of most people, no need for them to ever (even so little as) think like that, or about such things.
But I like what you also stated, (below you post, quoted herein) makes me think of the things in my life like the cross country skiing that I used to be able to indulge in, and arouses reminders of the times leaving the house around 9.30/10.00 Am, skiing to a restaurant to have lunch, ("Soup and a Sandwich" waaaaaay before it was 'popular') getting back home around 4.00/4.30 Pm, skied 24 miles through the forests, remember thinking that I was doing more work, "skiing" through the forest, then some of the very labour intensive employments that I had had, and yet loving it....how long it took me to "train" to be able to do that, as I had only started cross country skiing when I was 16, here I was in my mid twenties making 24 miles in a day. (No! not even close to what Olympic "Cross country Skiers" can do, Women too)
All that time I had had with this really good circulation going on in the midst of this intense physical training, (Feeds the brain, well!) and the thought processes, the sensitivity of the body to nutritional needs in such endevours, learning times...still going on, Thank God for that! (IMHO)
Originally posted by Royce
One, it is not complacency, it is letting go and letting happen what will happen rather than trying to force thing to happen by our will while meditating.
What's the difference?
Two, it does not do away with common sense but enhances it and brings understanding to why it is common sense.
Interesting. Can you expound on this point a little, please?
Three, there is no danger as we know that it is true or false we know real from illusion and distraction. If you ever experience it you will know what I'm talking about.
So we do know whether something is part of the illusion or whether it is real?
Mentat,
Complacency connotates self satisfaction or unawareness of a lack. If one were complacent then one would feel or have no need to meditate or ask questions. Being quiet and passively receptive is not the same as complacency.
Common sense is usually taken to mean that something makes sense without knowing the reason why it makes sense. It is , or usually thought of, as being intuitively obvious. At times while meditating or afterwards while digesting that which was experienced, we often see the reasoning behind something that is accepted as true or is intuitively obvious.
This is not a really good example of understanding common sense but it will give you an idea of what I'm talking about. The bible says that the sins of the father will be visited upon the sons for three generations. This is usually thought of to mean that when the father sins his sons will be guilty of the sin too and held accountable for the sins of the father. It is my understanding that what this really means is that when a father sins it is out of ignorance or character flaw. If the father does not have the knowledge or character to teach his sons differently, he can't teach what he himself does not have or know, then his sons too will be lacking and it will take three generations for that lack to be made up for or done away with. The first is an example of a fearful avenging God of the old testament the latter an example of a loving and understanding God of the new testament who knows and realizes how life on earth works.
I came to this different view and interpetation while meditating.
Yes, usually while meditating we know that something is true or not, whether it is real or an illusion and whether it is meaningful and relevant or merely a distraction. It has a different feel or flavor to it. Even if we want something to be true or meaningful and get hungup with a distraction, deep down inside we know it for what it is and eventually have to let it go and face what is real and true not what we want to be real or true.
There is no place to hide from the light or the truth. We all stand naked before our God with our souls bared for him to see all. Yet, there is no shame nor guilt unless we ourselves cling to it for our own personal reasons. God understands and loves us God does not condemn nor punish us. We do that to ourselves. God does not forgive us as no forgivness is necessary where there is understanding and love. It is only for us to forgive ourselves as well as others.
This I know as true and this is part of what I have been shown.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec23-03, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) There is no place to hide from the light or the truth. We all stand naked before our God with our souls bared for him to see all. Yet, there is no shame nor guilt unless we ourselves cling to it for our own personal reasons. God understands and loves us God does not condemn nor punish us. We do that to ourselves. (SNoP)
Amen.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec24-03, 05:22 AM
As is the nature of my life, this...
originally posted par moi
(SNIP) skied 24 miles through the forests (SNoP)
Apparently I erred in my math, it is 24 KMS not miles...but it is interesting to me that it really isn't the distance that counts, (it is, but just not that much) it is the time, as what was going on at that point in time in my life, three/four years after I had finished Puberty, learning something called "Meditation In Motion", sorta like "In the Zone" (I suppose) but really an internal learning that cannot be found in any books (other then the "book within") and is only there, for people, when they are ready, if at all as some will never know it.
radagast
Dec24-03, 09:03 AM
Other than the interpretation that the experience implies god (and the other theistic interpretations), I have to agree with Royce. The term that pops to my mind, rather than common sense, is clarity of thought.
Back some thirty years ago, I had tried hallucinogens. They do have the power to help you understand your own mind, but they are a double edged sword. It is extremely easy to fall into the trap of using them simply as entertainment or escape. Also, the fact that they alter the way your mind normally works, on such a basic level, leaves you with more insights into how your mind works on the drugs, than off. I had known many, many people that used them back in the 60s, 70s, few, if any attained any understanding.
Meditation is a much more solid path to understanding how your mind works, to clarity of thought and action, and to accepting that which cannot be changed. It's much harder and slower, but something whose results can be trusted.
Originally posted by radagast
Other than the interpretation that the experience implies god (and the other theistic interpretations), I have to agree with Royce. The term that pops to my mind, rather than common sense, is clarity of thought.
Alright, I contemplated the difference of common sense and clarity of thought for a while, but I am not seeing a prerogative that alters any application of the two. Would you care to help clarify and reach a consensus that juxtaposes the differences?
Thank you.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec25-03, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by radagast
(SNIP) Meditation is a much more solid path to understanding how your mind works, to clarity of thought and action, and to accepting that which cannot be changed. It's much harder and slower, but something whose results can be trusted. (SNoP)
Yup!
The 'path' is the thing that is what most people are on, but don't realize, and it is important to realize not just the reward of the learning of "self" forgiveness (Always only in God's light!) but that the entrance to that path begins in the learning of Forgiveness of 'others' first, and foremost.
It is a clear aspect of what knowledge of a "Truth" enables, "Solidity of Path" (knowledge) even in the dark. (neat!)
Mr. P,
Two thing to add rather than dispute or disagree.
1. it is the path and our travels along it that is the important process, not the goal or the end of the path that is the most important. It is only while traveling along our paths that we learn and grow and we each have our own path and travel at our own rate. I know that you know this. I put it down only so that others can know.
2. Forgin=ving others is the easy part; but, just, if not more, important is forgiving ourselves. This is the hardest part for me, learning to fortgive myself. Do all of you find this as hard as I do or am I merely harder and more unforgiving of myself. Only through self forgiveness can we find true peace and harmony with in.
radagast,
In my mind clarity of thought and common sense go hand in hand but are not necessarily the same thing. In fact I think that if we should achive true clarity of thought, common sense would become meaningless and be replaced with understanding and harmony. I am having trouble with the term common sense, what does it mean? Does it differ for each of us or is it cultural or societal? How would I best answere Mentat's question? Common sense was just that, common and accepted. I never thought much about it.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec27-03, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) Forgin=ving others is the easy part; but, just, if not more, important is forgiving ourselves. This is the hardest part for me, learning to fortgive myself. Do all of you find this as hard as I do or am I merely harder and more unforgiving of myself. Only through self forgiveness can we find true peace and harmony with in.
(SNoP)
Myself, I found self acceptance worked. don't know if I always forgive myself, but rather, try to find "self acceptance" from the lesson(s) that (obviously) needed to be learned. (by me/myself)
It's sorta like if I can learn, well enough, from it, to not repeat it, then I can accept it....it was what I needed to learn...
Yeah, acceptance is the first step. Then embracing it. I think that this would be your accepting it as a lesson that you needed to learn. The last step is letting it go so that it no longer has any effect on us. It no longer has any guilt or shame attached to it but is simply a memory of a lesson learned or experience that makes us who and what we are.
I think that I suppressed so much of this stuff while young that I never dealt with it at the time. Now I have to dig it up and figure out what it meant to me at the time and why. Once I understand then I can deal with it. Often the hardest part is figuring out what the hell this is all about and why should it surface now. It usually is so trivial and in consequential that I don't know why it is still there in the first place.
It is meditation that brings all of this and other things to mind or consciousness and shows me how to deal with it. It isn't always easy and often puzzling at first.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec28-03, 07:40 PM
Royce, it is the value of your education, as it is now the value of your time, to you...keep going, you'll get there...
Thanks Mr. P., I know but at times it seems such a long road to travel. At other times I'm amazed at how far I've come. It all ways surprises me at how much junk and negative trash that I brought with me from my childhood and younger years. I've gotten rid of, let go, so much that i be gin to think that I've gotten rid of it all more pops up that I don't even consciously remember full of emotional content that I didn't even know it or I had.
ambient
Dec29-03, 12:10 PM
Hello everyone!
I was quite enterntained by this thread.
However, it really surprises me that the
only truly objective and scientifically
rigorous person here is Mumeishi!
Gosh, all of this misunderstanding in
Quantum Mechanics about the duality
of the particles brought forward
silly notions of consciosness being
able to alter reality. Yes, from initial
explanation of particle duality, you could
possibly derive that, but the thing is that
the definition of uncertainty was flawed.
For all of you who still think that particle
does not exist until it is measured - here is
the breaking news! READ MORE ON QUANTUM PHYSICS!
NOT METAPHYSICS. I understand that hoaky stuff is
much more fascinating, but it is just that - hoaky!
As for the particle uncertainty - the particles are
not necessarily particles, but rather waves with
unique qualities. Basically, if you want to see an
electron as a particle you will, but the more you try
to define it as a particle, the less you can define it
as a wave, and vice versa. There is nothing magical here,
it is just the challange of describing quantum physics by
the means of classical physics.
As for chi and other seemingly superhuman feats in
martial arts - it is just your ordinary kinetic and potential
energies combined with the power of suggestion.
And it is truly a fact - the most effective martial arts are
Ju-Jitsu, Judo, Boxing/Kickboxing. Karate to some extent.
But all the fancy Aikido, Kung-fu, etc. - they don't
work in the real world. Watch the UFC competition - the
best example of what works and what does not.
Have any of you joined the army? They don't teach fancy
stuff in there, they teach you what works - basic strikes,
grappling, and my favorite - eye-gouging.
If you are still a big believer in fancy, chi-oriented martial
arts that means that you haven't really been in a decent fight.
Bash me, trash me, argue with me, but what I have stated
here are for the most part real life facts. Tough to deal
with for some, but REAL nonetheless.
P.S. Do they speak English in Nova Scotia? Doesn't seem like it.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec29-03, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Royce
Thanks Mr. P., I know but at times it seems such a long road to travel. At other times I'm amazed at how far I've come. It all ways surprises me at how much junk and negative trash that I brought with me from my childhood and younger years. I've gotten rid of, let go, so much that i be gin to think that I've gotten rid of it all more pops up that I don't even consciously remember full of emotional content that I didn't even know it or I had.
Perhaps it is because it really isn't 'trash' (or junk) but something that you could "stand to learn something from", maybe that is why it comes back, repetitvely, maybe you have missed an important lesson from one, or more, (or NOT) of them.
Maybe/Perhaps not...
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec29-03, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by ambient
(SNIP) I was quite enterntained by this thread.
However, it really surprises me that the
only truly objective and scientifically
rigorous person here is Mumeishi! (SNoP)
Ahem, all this is "subjective testimony" as is (in the end) all Science, what I suspect(ed) was being attempted (herein) was simply describing, or a description, of, reality...we tried to comply...
Originally posted by ambient
(SNIP) P.S. Do they speak English in Nova Scotia? Doesn't seem like it. (SNoP)
Yes they do, why do you ask? may I ask?
Mr. P.,
Most I think that it is unresolved isses that are coming up. which of couirse contains unlearned lessons to be learned. Its like cleaning house, not spring cleaning in this case, more like fall cleaning. We all have to go through it to one degree or another. It is also a source of distraction as I/we get hung up on some things that happened long ago.
It is not that I dispare; but, more to let others know that they are not alone and that they can get through it. Meditation can be and ussually is painful though we may not know the source of the pain.
Once through it even partially we begin to reep the benifits of inner knowledge and peace. Once we let go of the negative things like rage, anger, shame, and guilt we are filled instead with truth, light, peace and yes even joy. The negatives are gone forever and can no longer hurt or harm us just and the peace and harmony are forever.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec30-03, 08:48 AM
Royce, I agree, from experiance....God's Grace, in my life...
(as it is in all lives)
Originally posted by ambient
Hello everyone!
I was quite enterntained by this thread.
However, it really surprises me that the
only truly objective and scientifically
rigorous person here is Mumeishi!
Hey, what are you trying to say? http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/sauer/angry-smiley-019.gif
Bash me, trash me, argue with me, but what I have stated
here are for the most part real life facts. Tough to deal
with for some, but REAL nonetheless.
Well, inspite of the fact that I agree with your conclusion (even if not with your method of presentation), I must mention that there are still serious scientists who are working toward a theory of "quantum consciousness". I may think such an attempt is foolish, when the mathematics of QM work just fine to describe the physics without conciousness ever even being mentioned, but anyone who thinks they can make it work is entitled to try.
ambient, it would do you much good to cease stating scientific knowledge as though it were fact. The Scientific Method is not designed so that one might preach absolute truth, but is (instead) very plastic and changeable.
Originally posted by Mentat
ambient, it would do you much good to cease stating scientific knowledge as though it were fact. The Scientific Method is not designed so that one might preach absolute truth, but is (instead) very plastic and changeable.
Well said Mentat, I'm proud of you. This is so much better than your devil's advocate facade.
ambient
Dec30-03, 03:26 PM
To Mentat:
Actually, after reading this thread again, I've
realized that you are another person who can
make a very well stated and coherent point.
I agree that I should not word my posts in the
way that suggests that science provides us with
facts. I realize that science rather provides
us with approximations, with the most accurate
answers possible at the time, yet these answers
may not always be the absolute truth.
However, at this point in time they provide us
with the best tools to help us understand
reality. They are the best in the context of
objectivity.
I am not completely discounting the fact that
we do construct our own reality, for all I know
nothing but my very conciousness is real. But there
is a vast amount of evidence that can show that this
theory is wrong.
In the end, I believe that our belief system should be
based on the most plausible and sound approximations.
Which makes the probabilty of them being facts very high.
On the other hand, any notion that contradicts the
scientific norm and does not show much proof, is not
impossible, but rather improbable.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec31-03, 05:44 AM
Ambient you do realize this is the "Metaphysics and Epistimology" forum, right? not QM or SR "rigor servile"....
Mr. Robin Parsons
Dec31-03, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by ambient
Gosh, all of this misunderstanding in
Quantum Mechanics about the duality
of the particles brought forward
silly notions of consciosness being
able to alter reality. Yes, from initial
explanation of particle duality, you could
possibly derive that, but the thing is that
the definition of uncertainty was flawed.
Kinda funny you say that, Dr. David Suzuki's television show "The Nature of Things" did a show on just that topic, with Scientific measure of results ("method" {Metaphysical?} is as yet unmeasurable..) that would lend 'credance' to the idea that there is an as yet unmeasured aspect of the Human mind that HAS influence over matter, so until the method is measurable the results are argueably arguable...
Originally posted by ambient
For all of you who still think that particle
does not exist until it is measured - here is
the breaking news! READ MORE ON QUANTUM PHYSICS!
NOT METAPHYSICS. I understand that hoaky stuff is
much more fascinating, but it is just that - hoaky!
As for the particle uncertainty - the particles are
not necessarily particles, but rather waves with
unique qualities. Basically, if you want to see an
electron as a particle you will, but the more you try
to define it as a particle, the less you can define it
as a wave, and vice versa. There is nothing magical here,
it is just the challange of describing quantum physics by
the means of classical physics.
A challenge? HUH?
Originally posted by ambient
and my favorite - eye-gouging.
Cheese, nice guy.... [g)]
Originally posted by ambient
P.S. Do they speak English in Nova Scotia? Doesn't seem like it.
Asked you why you asked, they do, been there N S E & W ....
To Mr. Parsons:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ambient
For all of you who still think that particle
does not exist until it is measured - here is
the breaking news! READ MORE ON QUANTUM PHYSICS!
NOT METAPHYSICS. I understand that hoaky stuff is
much more fascinating, but it is just that - hoaky!
As for the particle uncertainty - the particles are
not necessarily particles, but rather waves with
unique qualities. Basically, if you want to see an
electron as a particle you will, but the more you try
to define it as a particle, the less you can define it
as a wave, and vice versa. There is nothing magical here,
it is just the challange of describing quantum physics by
the means of classical physics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A challenge? HUH?
What I mean is that at this stage in our development even
our language lacks proper terms for describing and
defining quantum physics. I am not quite sure what you were trying
to say by quoting my post.
As for the eye-gouging - it is a rather effective technique. That
or fist to the throat, solar plexes, kick to the knee of shin.
Kicking someone in the groin can be effective, but nowadays most
fighters anticipate it. Anyways, I am not an aggressive person,
actually I would do as much as I could to avoid a fight.
I asked whether they spoke English in Nova Scotia because "WOLF"
seems to have very superficial knowledge of the English language.
Now, I am not the best speller myself, but what he does on this
post is horrible, and it takes away from his credibility as well.
Mr. Robin Parsons
Jan3-04, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by ambient
What I mean is that at this stage in our development even
our language lacks proper terms for describing and
defining quantum physics. I am not quite sure what you were trying
to say by quoting my post. Something like what you point out above, but adding in that, it can be done, and the English language is sufficient to do it...
As for the eye-gouging - it is a rather effective technique. That
or fist to the throat, solar plexes, kick to the knee of shin.
Kicking someone in the groin can be effective, but nowadays most
fighters anticipate it. Anyways, I am not an aggressive person,
actually I would do as much as I could to avoid a fight. Thanks for the clarification, as a LAST resort it might be needed to defend a life, but your saying it was Your "Favorite" leads people to believe otherwise...you can understand that, right?
I asked whether they spoke English in Nova Scotia because "WOLF"
seems to have very superficial knowledge of the English language.
Now, I am not the best speller myself, but what he does on this
post is horrible, and it takes away from his credibility as well.
It was a sorta vague reference and to impune the reputations of all Acadians, based upon your experiance with one, well, tells clearly of your judgmental abilities(!)??
quick apologies for my poor spelling for all who want to know i was in french for half os my education. so i have a hard time spelling in english but trust me what i speak of i know about. for if one knows not about something one should not speak of it and that is not this case i know what i speak of i just have a hard time converting it to writen or typed work so my sincer apologies for all who have had a hard time reading my post.also my apologies for not posting in the past 2 weeks for i have been busy.i asure all who is reading that i will post more frequant more knowledgable post and most of all easier to read.
ambient this is for your RUDE,IGNORANT MOST BLATANT REMARKS I HAVE HEARD IN YEARS.Being a former student of a master whom had 21 black belts (including the ones you had named) and being told personaly by him that Nin-Jitsu,Central Kung-Fu and Adv tae-kwon-doe are The Top Ultimate martial arts and then for someone to say that the lowest rating martial arts in the world are "the only working ones" i actually must aplaud you.........FOR GIVING ME THE GREATEST LAUGH I HAVE HAD IN YEARS....Then for you to argue what chi can do and for you to Disgrace it's very name the way you did....Tells me that you have no clue what chi is.....And for one to speak of a subject they know nothing of is for one to venture unto the lions den blind.......i am assuming that you have not that much fighting experience or you would not say that kung-fu and that other flashy stuff does not work.....and even if you do have fighting experience i Garunte your experience is no where near mine.....i am not a violent person but i do have experience from tournaments trust when i say that what you mostly what you described does not work....also when you said that only one person is speaking science in this thread, is well proving your ignorance furthur......incase you have not noticed some way this thread is under M-E-T-A-P-H-Y-S-I-C-S- and with that i am done if you wish to debate anything i have said then post or add me to msn if you have it .......my email is Tempestwolfmaxxedout@hotmail.com and if any one else would like to talk about any of these subjects please feel free to do so
Why is it that in a metaphysical thread ppl are speaking only in science and are refusing to except othjer posiblities???is it because they are afraid to seek out other sources of "true" info???or is that that science has "proven" this if so they i ask this ......How do you know science is right??? where you there when it was proven?????was there some omni potent force that came down and said "this is right???? what i am saying is "why except but one truth when there could be many?"this is why i like metaphysics and "study" it(i used the quotes because you canot study metaphysics because it is a natural skill of simple questions and anwseres that lead to more questions but you can get better at it by "studying" it or using it as much as posible)because it excepts the posibilities of more then one definite answer.
Originally posted by ambient
Gosh, all of this misunderstanding in
Quantum Mechanics about the duality
of the particles brought forward
silly notions of consciosness being
able to alter reality. Yes, from initial
explanation of particle duality, you could
possibly derive that, but the thing is that
the definition of uncertainty was flawed.
Ambient it is rather simplistic to think that consciousness has anything to do with QM particle duality or waves with unique properties. Human beings seem to associate their own consciousness with an activity within the brain. The brain, like everything else, is simply a directed formation of basic particles designed in an irreducible complexity. Nothing indicates that these particle/wave properties can comprehend their surroundings or choose anything independently. You are correct in the concept of 'mind altering matter' being flawed.
For all of you who still think that particle
does not exist until it is measured - here is
the breaking news! READ MORE ON QUANTUM PHYSICS!
NOT METAPHYSICS. I understand that hoaky stuff is
much more fascinating, but it is just that - hoaky!
As for the particle uncertainty - the particles are
not necessarily particles, but rather waves with
unique qualities. Basically, if you want to see an
electron as a particle you will, but the more you try
to define it as a particle, the less you can define it
as a wave, and vice versa. There is nothing magical here,
it is just the challange of describing quantum physics by
the means of classical physics.
Unfortunately wave with unique properties (acting sometimes like particles) should not appear to have independent wisdom or affect particles billions of light years away instantly. This violates the basic tenet of Einstein that nothing travels faster than the light photon. If anyone feels they have a solid hold on QM physics, they are very much mistaken.
There are so many imponderables in QM that are not yet known.
Condsider a profound mystery in biology that is not accounted for by classical assumptions. The average neuron consists of about 80 percent water and about 100,000 molecules. The brain contains about 10 billion cells, hence about 10x15 molecules. Each nerve cell in the brain receives an average of 10,000 connections from other brain cells, and the molecules within each cell are renewed about 10,000 times in a lifetime. We loose about 1,000 cells a day, so the total brain cell population is decimated by about 10 million cells, losing in the process some 100 billion cross-linkages. "And yet" "despite this ceaseless change of detail in the vast population of elements, our basic patterns of behavior, our memories, our sense of intergral existence as an individual, have retained there unitary continuity of pattern". All of the material used to express that pattern has disappeared, and yet the pattern still exist. What holds the pattern, if not matter? Classical physics tells us that atoms and electrons of the same type are undifferentiated. How do the atoms that compose memory know how to pass on the information? Because they most certainly do.
Another conundrum before i make my point, what happens, after a long days work of the human mind thinking, through quantum tunnelling to make all those synapses convert into memory. Upon leaving the wake state and entering the dream state all electrons in the brain are in a state. Upon leaving the dream state and entering the wake state in order for us to know who we are those same electrons would have to be in exactly the same state as the previous. If they were not, how is it that we do not wake up with a differnt personality or new reality?
Something is going on here that is affecting QM in a sub-quantum level. Everything indicates that these particle/wave properties can comprehend their surroundings or choose anything independently.
It appears mind and matter might be undifferentiated also.
[8)]
Actually in my humble opinion, consciousness and awareness are not located within the brain or its billions of neuronal connections.
You have pointed out the problems in this metaphysics discussion. Some say that a part of this conundrum is found in those who have Alzheimers or injury to the brain. The human is no longer able to live in this physical world. The human consciousness slowly diminishes while in the 'brain' conscious awareness slowly disappears.
It appears that all our consciousness is within a giant holograph that not only creates our brain but its awareness of our everyday life and assumption of existence.
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
This premis would explain many things. The apparent connection of all the particles of the universe or what is on the other side of our universe border or simply the questions you have posed can be answered by a super-holographic dimensional universe.
As time goes on, I think that we will begin to understand the true reality of existence minus our daily reality.
But this is only my opinion.
Originally posted by onycho
Actually in my humble opinion, consciousness and awareness are not located within the brain or its billions of neuronal connections.
I would agree with this statement but, we have to analize this a little closer and define this more than in a few simple words. It might be more correct to say that matter is conscious and aware depending on the extent of its complexity. Things of higher complexity are more conscious and aware. Consciousness and awareness use the complexity of matter to manifest itself in different levels. Consciousness and awareness seem to use matter as a doorway.
You have pointed out the problems in this metaphysics discussion. Some say that a part of this conundrum is found in those who have Alzheimers or injury to the brain. The human is no longer able to live in this physical world. The human consciousness slowly diminishes while in the 'brain' conscious awareness slowly disappears.
This is an interesting analogy also. If what i state was not so having alzheimers, getting drunk or taking drugs should not affect our conscious awareness. Biology plays a part but it is secondary, we can affect changes in consciousness and awareness by doing biological manipilations. In humans, consciousness and awareness grows from birth to death. That is the way it appears to us but that might not be the way reality really is.
It appears that all our consciousness is within a giant holograph that not only creates our brain but its awareness of our everyday life and assumption of existence.
I tend to agree, there has been much controlled experimentation on psi over the years, that does give above chance statistics, that this just may be so. The evidence is there or we do not know math statistics. More of a fact, might be that, for socialogical reasons, most scientists are not aware of it.
Dean Radin "The Conscious Universe" ISBN 0-06-251502-0
http://www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
This premis would explain many things. The apparent connection of all the particles of the universe or what is on the other side of our universe border or simply the questions you have posed can be answered by a super-holographic dimensional universe.
We know there are many syconocities. We know that there are strang links between things but why do they happen, when they happen and to whom they happen is the next question to answer.
As time goes on, I think that we will begin to understand the true reality of existence minus our daily reality.
We can build and design holograms, maybe Someone thought of it first.
But this is only my opinion.
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
It might be more correct to say that matter is conscious and aware depending on the extent of its complexity. Things of higher complexity are more conscious and aware. Consciousness and awareness use the complexity of matter to manifest itself in different levels. Consciousness and awareness seem to use matter as a doorway.
I am having a little difficulty with your statement. Matter is conscious but I do not think it depends on any extent of complexity. In previous posts I have stated that I believe that all matter or particles in the universe are probably equally conscious and aware. Humans are very complex and yet we are composed of nothing more or less than the same subatomic matter/particles as that within a star, a mouse, a photon or even gravitons. The basic question is what makes the particles that make up humans or animals animate? What gives our particles consciousness when in my opinion all the other particles in the universe have the same cognition? As for consciousness and awareness using matter for anything I find a problem here. WHERE DID CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS ARISE AND WHAT IS ITS SOURCE?
In humans, consciousness and awareness grows from birth to death. That is the way it appears to us but that might not be the way reality really is.
I see consciousness and awareness existing in a timelessness which only manifests itself in our short reality for a short 'time' span in an infinity continuum. I do not think that consciousness or awareness grows or appears at birth or death. In my opinion, our conscious awareness existed an infinity before we were born and will continue in the same dimension for an infinity of timelessness after we leave this plane of existence in which we assume.
I tend to agree, there has been much controlled experimentation on psi over the years, that does give above chance statistics, that this just may be so. The evidence is there or we do not know math statistics. More of a fact, might be that, for socialogical reasons, most scientists are not aware of it.
Dean Radin "The Conscious Universe" ISBN 0-06-251502-0
Scientists and regular humans assume that we exist in a solid state world with awareness of things. Scientists are busy measuring and experimenting and computing that which their consciousness awareness finds present. I am not so sure that reality can be so measured.
We know there are many syconocities. We know that there are strang links between things but why do they happen, when they happen and to whom they happen is the next question to answer.
I believe that there are some questions and answers that are way beyond our finite reach. I perceive the air around me but can I measure the atoms in this air? This is only a simple illustration of that which illuminates our knowledge of things not available to our senses or knowledge.
We can build and design holograms, maybe Someone thought of it first.
Maybe everything was designed by an Originator who placed a long chain encrypted code of His design that is available to our decryption as we speak. But that is another story.
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader
It might be more correct to say that matter is conscious and aware depending on the extent of its complexity. Things of higher complexity are more conscious and aware. Consciousness and awareness use the complexity of matter to manifest itself in different levels. Consciousness and awareness seem to use matter as a doorway.
I am having a little difficulty with your statement. Matter is conscious but I do not think it depends on any extent of complexity. In previous posts I have stated that I believe that all matter or particles in the universe are probably equally conscious and aware. Humans are very complex and yet we are composed of nothing more or less than the same subatomic matter/particles as that within a star, a mouse, a photon or even gravitons. The basic question is what makes the particles that make up humans or animals animate? What gives our particles consciousness when in my opinion all the other particles in the universe have the same cognition? As for consciousness and awareness using matter for anything I find a problem here. WHERE DID CONSCIOUSNESS AND AWARENESS ARISE AND WHAT IS ITS SOURCE?
Let me be more specific. All matter is conscious and aware and would have the potentiality, to be anything, through a decision process, with design built into it. Yes we are all built of the same waves/particles but not all systems reflect the level of consciousness and awareness equally, the determining factor is complexity. What makes things animate?, my assumption is consciousness, life, Designer. Do these three words have to be separate entities?, could they not be the same thing? What gives our particles consciousness? Complexity of matter, with hidden variables, in the design that we know nothing of yet. In our matrix, it appears to us that both matter and consciousness does evolve, but only within the context of the I.. It appears that the most fundamental building block is waves since we assume that we can see only particles. It appears that when a body returns to innate matter, there is no consciousness, awareness or life, at the level it once had. The innate matter is still conscious but only of what it can be at that level, with its potentiality to be again. As for consciousness and awareness using matter for anything, a doorway for matter to manifest the I.
In humans, consciousness and awareness grows from birth to death. That is the way it appears to us but that might not be the way reality really is.
I see consciousness and awareness existing in a timelessness which only manifests itself in our short reality for a short 'time' span in an infinity continuum. I do not think that consciousness or awareness grows or appears at birth or death. In my opinion, our conscious awareness existed an infinity before we were born and will continue in the same dimension for an infinity of timelessness after we leave this plane of existence in which we assume.
We are trying to describe the same side of the coin with different faces. I understand what you write but interpret it differently. A individual human being never makes use of that potentiality of consciousness and awareness if it dies at birth, it must live the individual life. One thing that really bothers me, is if something of what we are survives this matrix, what i refer to specifically is not only soul but knowledge of the I.
I tend to agree, there has been much controlled experimentation on psi over the years, that does give above chance statistics, that this just may be so. The evidence is there or we do not know math statistics. More of a fact, might be that, for sociological reasons, most scientists are not aware of it.
Dean Radin "The Conscious Universe" ISBN 0-06-251502-0
Scientists and regular humans assume that we exist in a solid state world with awareness of things. Scientists are busy measuring and experimenting and computing that which their consciousness awareness finds present. I am not so sure that reality can be so measured.
I am aware of the way it appears to be. Measurement is an undetermined function in our matrix, due to the fact that measurement stick keeps getting smaller, the closer we try to measure. Time also plays the same tricks on us to measure. Reality not the matrix seems to indicate, the ultimate measurement might just not have a time or measurement to it.
We know there are many synchronicities. We know that there are strange links between things but why do they happen, when they happen and to whom they happen is the next question to answer.
I believe that there are some questions and answers that are way beyond our finite reach. I perceive the air around me but can I measure the atoms in this air? This is only a simple illustration of that which illuminates our knowledge of things not available to our senses or knowledge.
Yes but then again there seems to be great evidence of things around us and not so very near us that we can perceive at any distance. What I mean is that mind seems to affect matter in ways we are only beginning to understand.
We can build and design holograms, maybe Someone thought of it first.
Maybe everything was designed by an Originator who placed a long chain encrypted code of His design that is available to our decryption as we speak. But that is another story.
Maybe
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
Let me be more specific. All matter is conscious and aware and would have the potentiality, to be anything, through a decision process, with design built into it.
Whose design?
Yes we are all built of the same waves/particles but not all systems reflect the level of consciousness and awareness equally, the determining factor is complexity.
What makes one system more complex than another?
What makes things animate?, my assumption is consciousness, life, Designer. Do these three words have to be separate entities?, could they not be the same thing?
Designer = consciousness = life ~ animation? Can life create a Designer? Can consciousnes create a Designer? Does a Designer require life (as we know it) or consciousness (as we know it) as a priori for animation or the Designer's own ominsience?
What gives our particles consciousness? Complexity of matter, with hidden variables, in the design that we know nothing of yet. In our matrix, it appears to us that both matter and consciousness does evolve, but only within the context of the I.. It appears that the most fundamental building block is waves since we assume that we can see only particles.
What makes matter and particle consciousness evolve and from what do they evolve? You say that hidden variables not yet known have a complexity for particle/matter to be both conscious and animate or have these effects always been present in an infinity of timelessness? Why must we assume that the basic building block be a wave since our senses can only appreciate particles being present? Is the 'I' a wave, a particle, a consciousness or do we just not know?
It appears that when a body returns to innate matter, there is no consciousness, awareness or life, at the level it once had. The innate matter is still conscious but only of what it can be at that level, with its potentiality to be again. As for consciousness and awareness using matter for anything, a doorway for matter to manifest the I.
What makes you think that there is no consciousness or awareness or even life experience when a human returns to its basic particles?
Proposition: What if consciousness and awareness have been present in a timeless dimension that was there before you were born and continues after your earth body dies? What if nothing evolves but is created ex nihilo like science now considers the origin or Big Bang out of a void? Just a thought or two....
We are trying to describe the same side of the coin with different faces. I understand what you write but interpret it differently. A individual human being never makes use of that potentiality of consciousness and awareness if it dies at birth, it must live the individual life. One thing that really bothers me, is if something of what we are survives this matrix, what i refer to specifically is not only soul but knowledge of the I.
Why do you think a still born baby or a baby who dies at birth not continue to use the same consciousness and awareness that we all had, have and will have on a timeless continuum? You are making assumptions from your subjective point of view but so am I.... This is a discussion of the metaphysical which no one can know.
I am aware of the way it appears to be. Measurement is an undetermined function in our matrix, due to the fact that measurement stick keeps getting smaller, the closer we try to measure. Time also plays the same tricks on us to measure. Reality not the matrix seems to indicate, the ultimate measurement might just not have a time or measurement to it.
I'm not sure what you mean by our matrix or measuring sticks or time playing tricks but ultimately our finite attempts to understand the basic nature of things might just be beyond mankind's reach.
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader
Whose design?
"Not known" but the more, the explicit orders of nature are investigated and understood, the more evidence, that there is, a implicit order that emcompasses all the explicit order in nature. I do not think design was a roll of the dice, it was intentional, although this is just only my opinion.
What makes one system more complex than another?
"Not known" but through observation and study and confirmation of evidence, it shows us that a entity which has a more complex DNA strand, demonstates, more complexity of consciousness and awareness at a higher level. The number of atoms or molecules grouped together? The number of particles that are really either or waves/particles? Thats all that is known. Sorry there is only poor answers.
Designer = consciousness = life ~ animation? Can life create a Designer? Can consciousnes create a Designer? Does a Designer require life (as we know it) or consciousness (as we know it) as a priori for animation or the Designer's own ominsience?
"Not known" You or i could answer yes or no to all of those questions. Notwithstanding these three words could be a very poor description of whatever there is "mas alla" "out there" Designer = consciousness = life and be the samething, in our terms, or quite the opposite in another way, we know nothing of. I do not think we can define this in human terms, only try.
What makes matter and particle consciousness evolve and from what do they evolve? You say that hidden variables not yet known have a complexity for particle/matter to be both conscious and animate or have these effects always been present in an infinity of timelessness? Why must we assume that the basic building block be a wave since our senses can only appreciate particles being present? Is the 'I' a wave, a particle, a consciousness or do we just not know?
"Not known" A purpose through its design, from a Will. The potentiallity of these effects would seem to have to be in an infinity of timelessness. What else do we have except the observation of the I. Physics decribes up til now, nature as, wave/particle or both. Notwithstanding Consciousness is not physical nor are emotions and may just be part of what "Mind" is. It is all and nothing, depends how you want to define this.
What makes you think that there is no consciousness or awareness or even life experience when a human returns to its basic particles?
I do not think that. There is great evidence to the contrary. OBE
Proposition: What if consciousness and awareness have been present in a timeless dimension that was there before you were born and continues after your earth body dies? What if nothing evolves but is created ex nihilo like science now considers the origin or Big Bang out of a void? Just a thought or two....
It is a logical possiblity, that it is so. But what concerns me present, is why did Something in a timeless dimension use its consciousness and awareness to peer into what it is not. I can not know if you really understand what i am trying to say. I just know what i mean.
Why do you think a still born baby or a baby who dies at birth not continue to use the same consciousness and awareness that we all had, have and will have on a timeless continuum? You are making assumptions from your subjective point of view but so am I.... This is a discussion of the metaphysical which no one can know.
I really would like to know just what you intend to mean by this. I am not sure i understand you, can you explain further. If i understand you correctly, conception would mean that a life, lived or not would be fulfilled in this timeless continuum whether the entity lived evolved and died or not in our matrix reality.
I'm not sure what you mean by our matrix or measuring sticks or time playing tricks but ultimately our finite attempts to understand the basic nature of things might just be beyond mankind's reach.
By our matrix i mean only our reality not what might be the "REALITY" I mean that we can not measure the coast of England because evertime we try to measure the next curve on the beach in smaller terms, we will end up measuring waves, i do not mean water waves. I meant that the measurement of time, depends upon the observer only.
I wish i could answer you with better answers but so much is "not known to me"
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
Whose design?
"Not known" but the more, the explicit orders of nature are investigated and understood, the more evidence, that there is, a implicit order that emcompasses all the explicit order in nature. I do not think design was a roll of the dice, it was intentional, although this is just only my opinion.
In my opinion you are correct. For there to be a roll of the dice would imply that Someone had to roll them. The universe and its creations rely on each miniscule part relying on another factor without which nothing would occur as it is may be referred to as irreducible complexity. There is a - 0% statistical probability that the universe and everything in it could have come about by a roll of the dice whether by chaos or an unseen hand.
What makes one system more complex than another?
"Not known" but through observation and study and confirmation of evidence, it shows us that a entity which has a more complex DNA strand, demonstates, more complexity of consciousness and awareness at a higher level. The number of atoms or molecules grouped together? The number of particles that are really either or waves/particles? Thats all that is known. Sorry there is only poor answers.
Actually there is valid scientific evidence that every sub-atomic particle has wisdom or (intelligence) that you and I share. Even across the universe or across the room particles are aware of each other much like that described in a giant hologram. But like you say, the truth of everything is unknown and our beliefs probably have nothing to do with reality.
"Not known" You or i could answer yes or no to all of those questions. Notwithstanding these three words could be a very poor description of whatever there is "mas alla" "out there" Designer = consciousness = life and be the samething, in our terms, or quite the opposite in another way, we know nothing of. I do not think we can define this in human terms, only try.
What you are now saying is exactly what the Bible says about a Designer. He is unknownable, indescribable, without form or shape, cannot be seen by man, omniscient, timeless, not created and not a human being nor has human relatives. The question to answer is what existed before the Big Bang and what was a 'void'?
"Not known" A purpose through its design, from a Will. The potentiallity of these effects would seem to have to be in an infinity of timelessness. What else do we have except the observation of the I. Physics decribes up til now, nature as, wave/particle or both. Notwithstanding Consciousness is not physical nor are emotions and may just be part of what "Mind" is. It is all and nothing, depends how you want to define this.
Okay. Do we have an observation of the 'I' or do we assume that 'we' have an observation of the whole of humanity and life forms from a universal consciousness. Something like one part of a multiple level of freewill from which our minds perceive a solid universe of particles and protons (light) from darkness? These metaphysical questions have been posed by mankind for centuries.
What makes you think that there is no consciousness or awareness or even life experience when a human returns to its basic particles?
I do not think that. There is great evidence to the contrary. OBE
What evidence do we have? No one has come back from the great beyond to tell anyone about any continued flow of consciousness. We humans simply hope and want to believe that this life is not all there is but there is no valid evidence to the contrary.
Proposition: What if consciousness and awareness have been present in a timeless dimension that was there before you were born and continues after your earth body dies? What if nothing evolves but is created ex nihilo like science now considers the origin or Big Bang out of a void? Just a thought or two....
It is a logical possiblity, that it is so. But what concerns me present, is why did Something in a timeless dimension use its consciousness and awareness to peer into what it is not. I can not know if you really understand what i am trying to say. I just know what i mean.
Your are asking the eons old question of WHY and HOW would a Designer do what He did for us in the creation of our universe and existense. The only answer I have been given is that He wants us, His creations to assist in the continued creation on this the seventh day. If you think about it, creation continues forward each micro-second to micro-second. Everything is being renewed and changes on our level and the universal level continue from instant to instant. Our role in all this is said to use our freewill to choose to create or destroy the Creators continous changes.
Why do you think a still born baby or a baby who dies at birth not continue to use the same consciousness and awareness that we all had, have and will have on a timeless continuum? You are making assumptions from your subjective point of view but so am I.... This is a discussion of the metaphysical which no one can know.
I really would like to know just what you intend to mean by this. I am not sure i understand you, can you explain further. If i understand you correctly, conception would mean that a life, lived or not would be fulfilled in this timeless continuum whether the entity lived evolved and died or not in our matrix reality.
What I think is that what we call life is nothing more than 'freewill' on a continuum in the same timelessness (singularity) that has existed forever. That for a short 'now' time, this freewill becomes what you refer to as the I and we are allowed to assume a solid reality with laws of physics, a body, a brain, a universe, flowers, clouds, water, etc. I do not understand your words matrix reality. I do believe that the Designer has created an encrypted code or blueprint of everything like humans now understand to be in the DNA molecule which is said to form one cell into a differentiation of cells that form our bodies. This is irreducible complexity but on a greater level, a similar code occurs in a string of letters numbering 308,504 letters long. But that is another story and this blueprint is now being studied by many scientists and cryptologists around the world. Now that we have very powerful computers, this code is slowly being revealed but only the surface of the code has been found to this point.
Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Rader
Whose design?
I do not understand your words matrix reality.
Matrix is a situation or surrounding substance within which something else originates, develops, or is contained. Our matrix reality, our world as it appears to us, our universe. Our matrix our presumed physical world of which orginates the illusion, it evolves in containment of itself. Its just the way that i use to describe a seperation from the Outside peering into the inside. If the Outside is in a timeless continuum, there would be no need to evolve. Everything on the inside evolves or we assume that it does. It seems to have a direction. Mind spirit and body seems to have a direction. Not sure anyone, has ever defined this correctly, the only words to do it at hand, would be knowledge perfection complexity.
I do believe that the Designer has created an encrypted code or blueprint of everything like humans now understand to be in the DNA molecule which is said to form one cell into a differentiation of cells that form our bodies. This is irreducible complexity but on a greater level, a similar code occurs in a string of letters numbering 308,504 letters long. But that is another story and this blueprint is now being studied by many scientists and cryptologists around the world. Now that we have very powerful computers, this code is slowly being revealed but only the surface of the code has been found to this point.
If this code does exist in human DNA, it would mean that in other entities less evolved there would also be a code. It would and might also mean, that when the code reaches the micro level, that this spooky partcle movement may hold a clue to why particles weight, what they do, and act the way they do.. If a design code in humans was found, this would be to humans what the four laws of nature are to physics. That seem like a long way off. Do you have a link to this research?
[8)]
Originally posted by Rader
If this code does exist in human DNA, it would mean that in other entities less evolved there would also be a code. It would and might also mean, that when the code reaches the micro level, that this spooky partcle movement may hold a clue to why particles weight, what they do, and act the way they do.. If a design code in humans was found, this would be to humans what the four laws of nature are to physics. That seem like a long way off. Do you have a link to this research?
Actually this 'code of everything' does not exist in human DNA. The code exists in a combination of 26 individual letters much like the four DNA letters but forming 308,504 letters in a long string. The letters are thus placed in an infinite number of four dimensional formats so that no matter how many letters are in the width, height or depth the proximity of the letters form related clusters of significantly related historical and archeological known events. The crytography of this document is not only highly debated but many attempts have been made to debunk the methodology and mathematics have been pushlished. The fact that the code debunkers fudged the math as done with the original statistical formulas is highly enlightening.
The following site is very complex and unless you have a degree in statistical analysis, most of the material will be quite foreign to you. Included are responses to the refutations by many other scientists but the codes are very complex.
The site is very extensive:
http://www.torahcodes.co.il/
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.