Do 'we' see the world as we assume it exists?

"All the discoveries in the last century, in a sense, were finding more of things like those already found—until this. The Higgs is a completely new kind of object never known to exist before," says Gordon L. Kane of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Indeed, if it weren't for the Higgs boson, all matter would be on the left side of Albert Einstein's famous formula, E = mc2. Without the Higgs, nothing—not molecules, this magazine, you, Earth, the sun, or anything else—would exist as matter. Everything would always be in the form of energy dashing along at the speed of light.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20010310/bob9.asp

If ultimately no evidence is ever found of the anticipated Higgs Boson or field, what are the chances that there is no reality for particles, matter, strong/weak forces, gravity, a universe with a border or edge or anything else except pure condensed energy dashing about within a heretofore unknown dimension?

Then the question arises as to the nature or properties of energy?

Can anyone reconcile the fact that life forms, human choice and intelligence arise spontaneously from primary particles?

Do 'we' see the world as we assume it exists?

I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple.

Attribution: Albert Einstein

 

[Another God]

no, but those materialists amongst us assume the world exists as we see it.

 

Originally posted by anothergod

"no, but those materialists amongst us assume the world exists as we see it."

No, but the reality remains that so many unknowns facts persist for human explanation that from our point of observations they cannot be explained by any known theory that exists today. Sometimes it is helpful to get out of one's box and look around.

If it weren't for men like Einstein, Boehr and others that looked at a very different reality, would we still be living in the macro world of Newton?

The search for truth is more precious than its possession

Attribution-Albert Einstein

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by onycho

If it weren't for men like Einstein, Boehr and others that looked at a very different reality, would we still be living in the macro world of Newton?

Well, yeah, if it weren't for men like that, then no one would be pushing science forwards. But there will always be someone around to do it, and the problems faced by each theory are the fuel that makes them do it.

We have moved on from the Macro world of Newtonian physics because the theory wasn't perfect.

 

[olde drunk]

there is no other way to view reality. all data is filtered by our minds, psyche and conciousness. in turn we project our beliefs outward which creates the reality we see or experience.

in essence, we create our own reality,
chet

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
in turn we project our beliefs outward which creates the reality we see or experience.

in essence, we create our own reality,
chet

so, why don't you create a worm-hole to my office and tell me that in person?

 

[olde drunk]

YO GUYBRUSH!

I was just there! did you see me? feel me?

sorry, but you scared me so much that i jumped back to my office.

think bout it! you can doit!


chet

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
I was just there! did you see me? feel me?

you shouldn't drink any more . sorry I just had to say that
If you were close enough to scare you, tell me how do I look?

now, let's get back to serious stuff. How do you create your reality? What is the connection between what you create and what everybody else percieve?

 

[olde drunk]

no offense taken at the drinking comment. actually, i expected someone to tell me not to drink so early in the morn.

no matter how you slice it, our view of reality is based on our inner beliefs.

now, i believe that i am an energy conciousness visiting many worlds in the universe. "my focus" at this point in time and space is a human body that is sharing this period of existence on Earth with many like-minded souls. this (these) belief(s) influence and/or create my perception of this reality.

before birth we all agree to abide by the 'natural laws' that are in play during a particular time (probability) thread. as we, via science or whatever, change the laws (perception) we will experience a world that complies.

i suspect, that isolated cultures that have a high mystic content can and do have more psychic adventures than the rest of the 'civilized' world. brief example, the Tibetian monks that can go up on a mountain in sub freezing weather, bare footed with only a light robe. they do not freeze. in fact, they give off steam as they meditate. yeah, we can scientically explain that their meditation puts them in an altered state. BUT, they get to that state because they believe they can. we can't cause we have not accepted those tenets.

perhaps overly simplistic, but isn't this a simple world??

"if it don't feel good, don't do it! if it does, tell the world!"

hmmm, maybe, everyone should drink?? LOL

 

Well, yeah, if it weren't for men like that, then no one would be pushing science forwards. But there will always be someone around to do it, and the problems faced by each theory are the fuel that makes them do it.

We have moved on from the Macro world of Newtonian physics because the theory wasn't perfect.

Actually you are correct as the knowledge of matter, energy, time and all things observed is increasing exponentially each day. Without those few who actually venture away from conventional math such as QM, any attempt at understanding of what is seen by the visual cortex will remain static. Einstein worked on a unified field theory but failed.

Our current wonder man Stephen Hawking thinks that the theorized 'black-hole' eventually dissipates into nothingness. But the basic fact that the true nature of energy remains unknown. It can be measured but not be defined in terms that explain it exactly.

As Einstein predicted, particles and their constituents are nothing more or less than condensed energy. Whatever that is.

Cynicism makes things worse than they are in that it makes permanent the current condition, leaving us with no hope of transcending it. Idealism refuses to confront reality as it is but overlays it with sentimentality. What cynicism and idealism share in common is an acceptance of reality as it is but with a bad conscience.

ATTRIBUTION: Richard Stivers

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by onycho
As Einstein predicted, particles and their constituents are nothing more or less than condensed energy. Whatever that is.

Since Einstein basic concept is spacetime the key is imo: 'restructured spacetime". On certain spots spacetime couples to 'condensates' or holons, in which you have double spacetime.
In a Hawking term? Singularity becomes restructured singularity.

At least I offer a simple and logic alternative, which is better then staying in the dark.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
no matter how you slice it, our view of reality is based on our inner beliefs.

until I see reality changed by someone's inner belief I don't buy that...

before birth we all agree to abide by the 'natural laws' that are in play during a particular time (probability) thread. as we, via science or whatever, change the laws (perception) we will experience a world that complies.

that is an... interesting theory. Can you back it up with something showing that we are conscious before birth?

brief example, the Tibetian monks that can go up on a mountain in sub freezing weather, bare footed with only a light robe. they do not freeze. in fact, they give off steam as they meditate.

your example only proves that the monk is hot. He didn't change any reality, the mountain is still there and the weather is still sub-freezing...

 

[olde drunk]

Guybush

i said before, maybe another thread, that i can not concieve of a time when i didn't exist. Therefore, i have always existed. The fact that i have no conscious memory of it is necessary to narrow the focus of my conscious mind into this demension/reality.

remember, we have no conscious memory of being born and yet we know we were born. at least most of us. lol

yes the weather and the mountain are still there; but our monks are not suject to 'our' natural laws, THEY DO NOT FREEZE! they have been given and accepted a belief that they can be physically warm regardless of the ambient temperature.

if we could reach down into our core beliefs and identify them, THEN we could do the work and change them. i remain mindful of the many, many stories of impossible human strength in times of emergency. Here a desparate mother overcomes her belief that she can not lift a car with the belief that she MUST rescue her child trapped beneath the car. yeah, yeah adrenalin, etc etc. BUT what is the basis of making so much of any hormone/chemical. i go to proximate cause, the root of the events.

here's hoping that we change our belief about violence and wars. please, do not hate wars, but rather love peace, a strong belief that peace can and will solve our problems will bring about a better world.

so much for my morning, wake up stroll thru my mind.

peace and love,

 

[Dark Wing]

I wouldn’t say that we see the world as we presume it exists: we simply experience the world and attribute meaning to it. That’s not to say that we are all seeing different things - I wanted to make sure there was some consensus on that.

Old theories, new theories, and the ones we will use in the future: they are all based on the same thing. All those scientists saw exactly the same thing in front of them: they just came up with different explanations for it. Each of these explanations had their share of weakness and strength, and it is this that is taken to the next level as we try and understand the world. The same thing existed as it always did and we do see the same thing.

As for inner belief controlling outside effects... like your monks on the mountain, well that just goes to show that belief is a very powerful thing. Will to live, and will to keep things going is a very strong phenomenon, and one we don’t understand yet. It does not mean that we can control our outer environment, or that they really didn’t think the mountain was cold - they simply refused to let the mountain freeze them. That’s will power, and it doesn’t work every time, I want to see all the monks who tried that and failed, and what the difference was between them.

Reality being based on our beliefs and our belief systems: this effects the way we perceive the world as it gives us a range of bias's to see the world in. for peace and war for instance... a hate for war may give you a strong bias towards seeing everything as an act of war, in which you will hate and react against it, only making the situation worse. A love for peace would see you calmly sitting back and watching as the minor struggle, now with a lack of attention and momentum in it slowly dissipate, so a peaceful state will reign. So yes, beliefs will effect HUMAN action and social politics, of course it will, because our thought and our perspective is the only way to see what is happening, as it is based on nothing else. But just because we perceive an action to be provocative does not mean that it is, so our perception of even our social world is often inaccurate. We experience the world through our biases, so the aim is to limit the biases we have. Become a skeptic. Have no beliefs. Then we may live in harmony, and experience the world as we see it.

Maybe a distinction to seeing something and experiencing it is needed?

 

"I wouldn’t say that we see the world as we presume it exists: we simply experience the world and attribute meaning to it. That’s not to say that we are all seeing different things - I wanted to make sure there was some consensus on that."

Darkwing you have two too many presumptions and attributions for saying tht we are all possibly seeing different things. I'm afraid there is no consensus on this one.

1) What is it we are seeing things with?
2) What is seeing with our occipital cortex which is allegedly composed of ever smaller particles of matter?
3) Why do you think that we are seeing reality or that what we oberserve is as we assume it to exist from each of our points of perception?

"Old theories, new theories, and the ones we will use in the future: they are all based on the same thing. All those scientists saw exactly the same thing in front of them: they just came up with different explanations for it. Each of these explanations had their share of weakness and strength, and it is this that is taken to the next level as we try and understand the world. The same thing existed as it always did and we do see the same thing."

Everything you have just said is a presumption that scientists or even we see the same thing of old and new explanations for what can't possibly be reality.

First you have to surmise that this universe (if it exists at all) is made up of a void (space) 99.9999999% and the rest matter or particles.
Second what are these particles that we think exist as a reality?
If as Einstein and many others have theorized, all particles are in reality nothing more than compressed energy then what the heck is energy?
Third if energy is a reality where did it come from and is there some sort of correlation between this compressed energy and the back and forth formation of matter/energy?

There has been proposed that ultimately, energy is nothing more or less than a creator's Wisdom which allows us to perceive reality as 'we' assume it exists. Experimentation from different scientists around the world have now discovered that 'particles' seem somehow to have a innate choice to go this way or that which gives all particles some sort of Wisdom. Which brings us back to the concept of what animates particles/energy into our perceived human intellect, emotion, movement and some of the very same particles become a table or a photon (wave/particle duality)?

"As for inner belief controlling outside effects... like your monks on the mountain, well that just goes to show that belief is a very powerful thing. Will to live, and will to keep things going is a very strong phenomenon, and one we don’t understand yet. It does not mean that we can control our outer environment, or that they really didn’t think the mountain was cold - they simply refused to let the mountain freeze them. That’s will power, and it doesn’t work every time, I want to see all the monks who tried that and failed, and what the difference was between them."

The enigma remains. Do the Monks on the mountain exist or is perception greater than the reality in which we feel, touch, smell and see? Remember the old Star Trek episode where the Star Ship captain, a young man, was so badly injured that he became blind, quadraplegic (wheelchair bound) and deformed with the inability to speak? The inhabitants of this fictional planet were so much evolved that they were able to create in the captains mind, a reality of a return to his previous self with the ability to see, love, feel, walk and see things as he assumed they existed. Could we, here in this dimension of timelessness experience our clicking clock Earth time and understand things that are in reality nothing more than what we are allowed to percieve. Except of course for our freewill choice during our short blip of time in which we live?

"Reality being based on our beliefs and our belief systems: this effects the way we perceive the world as it gives us a range of bias's to see the world in. for peace and war for instance... a hate for war may give you a strong bias towards seeing everything as an act of war, in which you will hate and react against it, only making the situation worse. A love for peace would see you calmly sitting back and watching as the minor struggle, now with a lack of attention and momentum in it slowly dissipate, so a peaceful state will reign. So yes, beliefs will effect HUMAN action and social politics, of course it will, because our thought and our perspective is the only way to see what is happening, as it is based on nothing else. But just because we perceive an action to be provocative does not mean that it is, so our perception of even our social world is often inaccurate. We experience the world through our biases, so the aim is to limit the biases we have. Become a skeptic. Have no beliefs. Then we may live in harmony, and experience the world as we see it."

Or is it that for some inexplicable reason, all the above things you mentioned are not real and only for 'us' to choose to hate (war) or love (anything. Which brings us back to my original concept of each of our freewill choices with no more reality than being allowed to be in an invisible dimension where space/time is warped and 'we' are now as we existed before we were born and where we will be after we pass through this short veil of tears?

For just a moment step out of the box and like our greatest thinkers and scientists, dare to look at reality from a different perspective before returning to our busy measurements and theories of what 'we' see, feel, touch and perceive as this reality.

"Maybe a distinction to seeing something and experiencing it is needed?"

Perhaps you are very correct in this assumption.

 

[olde drunk]

onycho:

i really appreciate your ability to consider and amplify the ideas being presented.

what if our thoughts have enrgy as well as our conciousness. restated: what if we(conciousness) are energy and our thoughts and ideas are an energy projection. this idea(belief) creates the 'warp' in time space to present us with the reality that complies with our projection.

our monks do not change the reality of those that observe their reality. but, to the monks, the harsh weather is accepted in a way that their energy projection(body) experiences the weather as an acceptable (expected) experience.

they have not changed the weather or their bodies, but rather, their idea of what their body can do. firewalkers are ticksters of a sort; they know quick steps will avoid injury. National Geographic, i believe, was the group that filmed these monks. there could be no trick, other than a different belief system.

quite often i laugh after a sporting event. we all witness the same event, yet one third of the observers will be happy, one third sad and one third could care less. was it the same reality or three different realities?

how often does the worry of a negative event bring about it's occurrence? to a degree, we not only send out the thought energy, but we also unconciously do things that help it happen.

there are too many testimonies about the power of positive thinking to ignore its value. I'm sure it ain't that simple but when i expect a postive outcome my odds of it occurring go up. WHY? confidence does create unconscious actions to reinforce its happening as well.

maybe life is a game and we make up our individual rules as we go along?

hmmmmmmmm, i like that idea!

gimme a drink,
chet

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Originally posted by olde drunk
yes the weather and the mountain are still there; but our monks are not suject to 'our' natural laws, THEY DO NOT FREEZE! they have been given and accepted a belief that they can be physically warm regardless of the ambient temperature.

ok, let's take another example. how about this?

as you see, there are life forms that live in extreme conditions. What about them? Are those little worms modifing the natural laws with their brain. after all THEY DO NOT BOIL!

 

An Infinite Space/Time Warp

Since Einstein basic concept is spacetime the key is imo: 'restructured spacetime". On certain spots spacetime couples to 'condensates' or holons, in which you have double spacetime.
In a Hawking term? Singularity becomes restructured singularity.
At least I offer a simple and logic alternative, which is better then staying in the dark.

Acutally I understood Einstein's concept of a warped space/time being the definition of gravity. The more compressed the mass (i.e., old dead star) the greater that time is effected resulting in the slowing of time until the mass becomes so compressed that everything including photons are drawn into the now rapidly involuting small mass which is theorized to become a black-hole. A place where time itself becomes infinite or that singularity.

Steven Hawking sees something else happening in these long accepted events. The ultimate is that a black-hole becomes so compressed on itself that the black-hole eventually evaporates releasing all the matter that it held.

For me, whatever 'we' consist of actually exists at the edge of a dimension (could be called a black-hole) where time is infinite and does in reality not exist. Much like a magician's illusion, we perceive a reality of a solid world/universe where from our point of perception we live in this self assumption in a solid macro world.

Whatever...

 

[THANOS]

My T.V. burned out. no more energy comming from it but the T.V. is still there.

 

[olde drunk]

Guybrush Threepwood

staying with the topic of this thread:

if you are born into this world accepting certain basic laws AND they are reinforced with a certain belief discipline then you experience your world (reality) based on those accepted laws and beliefs.

if you are born with the basic ability to withstand high temperatures as a worm, you chose to be a worm with those charateristics.

let's stay with the human experience.

do the "laws of physics" exist because they are laws or because these were our explanation of the various events we experienced/saw and made measurements that resulted in the "laws". please remember that the measurements etc. are the result of the scientist's beliefs about what should be measured. it has been postulated that his beliefs even affect the results of the measurements. glass half full vs. glass half empty (LOL).

what if there are GREATER LAWS yet to be uncovered? laws that include conciousness and allows us to exceed the speed of light. Quantum theory is getting close to this information.

i am amazed that balancing particles of different charges, will switch instantly when its partner is changed, exceeding the speed of light. the only thing that i believe is quicker is a "THOUGHT".

so, is it possible that the energy of a thought, idea, belief goes out and creates a reality (for me) that complies.


we are but a spec when measured against the size of the universe, and yet, i feel like i am at the center of my universe.

are we a thought projection of our greater self and in turn creating other projected universes?


gawd, the mind boggles!
chet

 

Orginally posted by Thanos

"My T.V. burned out. no more energy comming from it but the T.V. is still there."

Where did you say that TV is? Take a look outside of your TV and you might find that you are an optical illusion.

Reality is the beginning not the end,
Naked Alpha, not the hierophant Omega,
Of dense investiture, with luminous vassals.

ATTRIBUTION: Wallace Stevens

 

Originally posted by Olde drunk

"i am amazed that balancing particles of different charges, will switch instantly when its partner is changed, exceeding the speed of light. the only thing that i believe is quicker is a "THOUGHT"."

Faster than light olde-drunk. Quantum mechanics says that particles on this side of the universe have a direct instantaneous effect on particles on the other side of the universe. The distance across the perception of this universe is so great than even thought cannot happen that rapidly. The effect is that the thoughts created in your gray matter are actually effecting particles on trillions and trillions of miles away the same second. Your reality and that that which is the answer may be light years apart.

"we are but a spec when measured against the size of the universe, and yet, i feel like i am at the center of my universe."

If you feel that you are the center of the universe, then pray tell what is on the other side of this universe?

An inflated consciousness is always egocentric and conscious of nothing but its own existence. It is incapable of learning from the past, incapable of understanding contemporary events, and incapable of drawing right conclusions about the future. It is hypnotized by itself and therefore cannot be argued with. It inevitably dooms itself to calamities that must strike it dead.

ATTRIBUTION: Carl Jung

 

Orignally quoted by guybrush threepwood

"that is an... interesting theory. Can you back it up with something showing that we are conscious before birth?"

that is also an interesting observation. Can you back up anything that shows you are actually conscious right now?

 

[Dark Wing]

Originally posted by onycho
Dark wing you have two too many presumptions and attributions for saying that we are all possibly seeing different things. I'm afraid there is no consensus on this one.

Did I say that we were all seeing different things? i believe what I actually said is that we are all seeing exactly the same thing: it’s our interpretations of what we see that differ.

1) What is it we are seeing things with?
2) What is seeing with our occipital cortex, which is allegedly composed of ever-smaller particles of matter?
3) Why do you think that we are seeing reality or that what we oberserve is as we assume it to exist from each of our points of perception?

1) we are seeing/experiencing things through our sensory system.
2) seeing through our perception system is exactly that: a collection of matter constructed in such a way that it gives us the ability to since and see our world. Yes, its composed of smaller matter etc, and you can take it down or up to any level that you like... (not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here)
3)not exactly sure what you are asking me here... why do i think we see things from our point of perception? because that’s where we are. Why do we use our background knowledge to make sense of our point of perception? because that’s all we have... and its when we realize that these theories we rely on to predict our world do not world that we look for a change, to develop a new theory that will cover more ground... Why do i think we are seeing reality? i think what we are all seeing is consistent. we will all receive the same photon stimulation on our eye, for instance. It depends on how our different systems interpret this information that demands what we will see it as. Does that make it any clearer? it shows you can have 2 identical stimuli with 2 different responses from 2 people.

Everything you have just said is a presumption that scientists or even we see the same thing of old and new explanations for what can't possibly be reality.

no... what i said is that we all observe the same phenomenon: we just attribute different causes to it. an old theory will seem like an exhaustive account of phenomena until more things that it cannot explain are discovered, and then that theory will be discarded; because it could not explain all the repercussions and details of the phenomena... there fore it couldn’t possibly be a true representation of events...

First you have to surmise that this universe (if it exists at all) is made up of a void (space) 99.9999999% and the rest matter or particles.
Second what are these particles that we think exist as a reality?
If as Einstein and many others have theorized, all particles are in reality nothing more than compressed energy then what the heck is energy?

I’m not saying that its not compressed energy. what’s wrong with it being compressed energy? so we have different configurations of energy in the universe that creates different things in the universe... it doesn’t stop us from saying that it is all energy, but surly you can't claim that tables don’t exist as all they are is a compilation of energy. So what if it is? so, look at energy, and try to figure out why it exhibits "table like" behavior when in a table, and "space” like behavior when it’s in space. find explanations for that,, and explain how we are all structured from the same building blocks, space, living things and non-living things alike.

Third if energy is a reality where did it come from and is there some sort of correlation between this compressed energy and the back and forth formation of matter/energy?

why are you bringing reality into this? so everything is energy. does that make reality unreal? does it mean that i am somehow not seeing what is real? or i am living in some kind of matrix like illusion? no - i sit here and type keys: they are a certain physical form of energy, and the keys are real enough. It is energy configured in ways i can perceive it, and it has certain uses.

There has been proposed that ultimately, energy is nothing more or less than a creator's Wisdom, which allows us to perceive reality as 'we' assume it exists. Experimentation from different scientists around the world have now discovered that 'particles' seem somehow to have a innate choice to go this way or that which gives all particles some sort of Wisdom. Which brings us back to the concept of what animates particles/energy into our perceived human intellect, emotion, movement and some of the very same particles become a table or a photon (wave/particle duality)?

Ok, whether it be creators energy or not: that is an interpretation of what you see partials doing. as for them moving with internationality: again, simple interpretation. what you see as internationality, another will see as causation. physical structure gives way to consciousness and intellect: if you are claiming some kind of panpsychism - that energy is consciousness, and we all just walk through it, everything has a mind and intention: then go for it, but i want more than an interpretation of moving partials. Yes, the same photon that i eject from my retina will then be absorbed by the table, which will then spit another photon out and so on. So that suggests that each photon may have a function a photon break down we have not yet discovered. It does not imply universal consciousness, or wave duality.

The enigma remains. Do the Monks on the mountain exist or is perception greater than the reality in which we feel, touch, smell and see?

Perception is not greater than what we perceive. that’s the point of our perception system. It perceives. we can’t perceive more than our system does. energy may be greater than our perception system: Energy is bigger. and yes the monks exist! if they don’t exist, then how can you sit there and say they survived the mountain freeze? we cannot perceive the whole of reality: reality is too big. but we perceive the reality in which we live.

Could we, here in this dimension of timelessness experience our clicking clock Earth time and understand things that are in reality nothing more than what we are allowed to perceive. Except of course for our freewill choice during our short blip of time in which we live?

can we understand our perceived world? yes. i am not sure what you are saying about free will, can you rephrase that bit for me?

Or is it that for some inexplicable reason, all the above things you mentioned are not real and only for 'us' to choose to hate (war) or love (anything. Which brings us back to my original concept of each of our freewill choices with no more reality than being allowed to be in an invisible dimension where space/time is warped and 'we' are now as we existed before we were born and where we will be after we pass through this short veil of tears?

yes... we can choose... whether this is a free choice or not we will never know (as it would feel the same: free will/determinism are again theories of this world in which could both be wrong) so, "we" exist as a collective? as we are all made of ever moving energy that changes in forms to be born and dissipates at death. But does that mean that "we" in our current form do not exist? do we have memory of ourselves in energy form?

For just a moment step out of the box and like our greatest thinkers and scientists, dare to look at reality from a different perspective before returning to our busy measurements and theories of what 'we' see, feel, touch and perceive as this reality.

Who said anything about measurements? I simply say that we all see the same configurations: and we all have our theories on what’s actually happening. I believe it is you who are making the assumptions on what I am saying.

 

[THANOS]

"My T.V. burned out. no more energy comming from it but the T.V. is still there."

Maybe you guys didn't understand what i meant by saying that sentence. What i "really" meant was that our mind and memorys. Our reality is much like our "T.V." About 90% bull**** and fiction and the rest is reality to our bias views. And like our T.V. went it dies out no more energy comes through and the images no longer exist. So you see we aren't that far from realizing that our existence is only or mostly for our amusment. hehe.

 

Response Part 1

Originally posted by Dark Wing

“Did I say that we were all seeing different things? i believe what I actually said is that we are all seeing exactly the same thing: it’s our interpretations of what we see that differ. “

Sorry if I erred in your understanding your previous statement concerning seeing different things or just our differing interpretations of visualizing the very same things. Actually both of our statements have a definite connection in that we both may see a table but your brain may mentally picture a solid flat object and I may see an entirely different three-dimensional object. Much like the illusion created by a skilled magician is interpreted by our brain in order to make some sense of what we see. I once saw a magician on a beach with a small audience seated, when an island about two miles away made to move a significant distance when a screen was placed in front of it and then moved back with a similar movement. I have no idea of how this trick was done but I saw it. This example illustrates that what the observers saw from their individual point of reference was both visually different and interpreted differently.

“1) we are seeing/experiencing things through our sensory system.”

The meaning of your sentence is premised on the concept that we are seeing/experiencing anything that exists in reality or just a perception of same.

“2) seeing through our perception system is exactly that: a collection of matter constructed in such a way that it gives us the ability to since and see our world. Yes, its composed of smaller matter etc, and you can take it down or up to any level that you like... (not exactly sure what you are trying to ask here)”

Your statement is very much on point: To understand that an object is perceived in our brain with a currently not understood ability of our neurons to somehow witness our solid world is based on a jump of faith. Science tells us that what appears to be a solid object is in reality mostly space and inanimate particles. We feel a solid object while they tell us that what we are feeling is not those particles or space but really the strong force that holds a few particles in an unknown relationship.

A great illustration was given with the object we know as a hydrogen atom. The nucleus of this atom is so small that it cannot be seen because photons are too large to rebound into the lens of the latest scanning tunneling microscopes available today. If one were to magically be able to increase the size of that hydrogen atom nucleus to about a 4” diameter the outer circling electron would be 8 miles away. If you extrapolate this fact to atoms/molecules to our universe, then the fact of empty space vs. particles give credence to the fact that particles even compressed to our own world’s dimension are unlikely to be visual reality. We can speak about what we think we see but is it reality?

“3)not exactly sure what you are asking me here... why do i think we see things from our point of perception? because that’s where we are.”

Are we here and just exactly where are we? A conundrum……

“Why do we use our background knowledge to make sense of our point of perception? because that’s all we have... “

Is that all we have or is that all we humans are given to make sense of our point of perception?

“and its when we realize that these theories we rely on to predict our world do not world that we look for a change, to develop a new theory that will cover more ground... “

If these theories to predict our world are in reality based only flawed observations of actuality, then how can we be certain of anything, i.e., what is on the outside of our universe?
“Why do i think we are seeing reality? i think what we are all seeing is consistent.”

Consistent with what and how can you be so sure that all you are observing is real? I have to question even that possibility. Even though you feel that is all we have at our disposal.
‘we will all receive the same photon stimulation on our eye, for instance. It depends on how our different systems interpret this information that demands what we will see it as. Does that make it any clearer? it shows you can have 2 identical stimuli with 2 different responses from 2 people.”

I realize that you are speaking from your own understanding of how the eye macula plate receives photons, which stimulates rods and cones to create electrical signals which are then transmitted along the optic nerves to those portions of the brain where somehow we are able to visualize objects. The brain is such a complex computer that different people interpret a solid differently but I again question the reality of the entire process of particles becoming animate in order for all these things to be real.

“no... what i said is that we all observe the same phenomenon: we just attribute different causes to it. an old theory will seem like an exhaustive account of phenomena until more things that it cannot explain are discovered, and then that theory will be discarded; because it could not explain all the repercussions and details of the phenomena... there fore it couldn’t possibly be a true representation of events...”

Agree entirely with your last statement, “... therefore it couldn’t possibly be a true representation of events...”

“I’m not saying that its not compressed energy. what’s wrong with it being compressed energy? so we have different configurations of energy in the universe that creates different things in the universe... it doesn’t stop us from saying that it is all energy, but surly you can't claim that tables don’t exist as all they are is a compilation of energy. So what if it is? so, look at energy, and try to figure out why it exhibits "table like" behavior when in a table, and "space” like behavior when it’s in space. find explanations for that,, and explain how we are all structured from the same building blocks, space, living things and non-living things alike.”

Your statement is valid. I must go back to my analogy of the fictional Star Trek captain who was allowed to experience reality as he assumed it existed. In your opinion is there not even a possibility that those objects we experience as solid and real could be nothing more than what ‘we’ (whatever self is) are seeing is an illusion? That energy is really nothing more or lees than a form of an unknowable WISDOM from a Master clockmaker?

“why are you bringing reality into this?”

Because that is another possibility beyond our own perceived observations.

“so everything is energy. does that make reality unreal?”

Possibly….

“does it mean that i am somehow not seeing what is real? or i am living in some kind of matrix like illusion? no - i sit here and type keys: they are a certain physical form of energy, and the keys are real enough. It is energy configured in ways i can perceive it, and it has certain uses.”

[/b]Possibly so. As you sit there typing keys and thinking with possibly inanimate sub-atomic particles when you might only be permitted to feel those keys and to think with an unknown gift that gives those perceived particles the ability to sense our reality[/b]

“Ok, whether it be creators energy or not: that is an interpretation of what you see partials doing. as for them moving with internationality: again, simple interpretation. what you see as internationality, another will see as causation. physical structure gives way to consciousness and intellect: if you are claiming some kind of panpsychism - that energy is consciousness, and we all just walk through it, everything has a mind and intention: then go for it, but i want more than an interpretation of moving partials. Yes, the same photon that i eject from my retina will then be absorbed by the table, which will then spit another photon out and so on. So that suggests that each photon may have a function a photon break down we have not yet discovered. It does not imply universal consciousness, or wave duality.”

Again you are correct in your assumptions. But will you admit that your ideations has no more validity than mine because of things not yet discovered?

 

Response Part 2

”Perception is not greater than what we perceive. that’s the point of our perception system. It perceives. we can’t perceive more than our system does.”

Why

“energy may be greater than our perception system: Energy is bigger. and yes the monks exist! if they don’t exist, then how can you sit there and say they survived the mountain freeze? we cannot perceive the whole of reality: reality is too big. but we perceive the reality in which we live.”

You make an interesting observation in your statement that “reality is too big.” If we perceive the reality in which we live then the circle returns to what is ‘WE.’ Before you can go forward with theories one must define the very what, why and how of existence and the nature of intelligence in any formation of inanimate particles or energy.

“can we understand our perceived world? yes. i am not sure what you are saying about free will, can you rephrase that bit for me?”
Certainly. I propose that the “WE’ are actually a flow of some sort of force or freewill which exists in the form an unknown energy plasma in a infinite timelessness. That this freewill was given as a gift to perceive our universe, objects and given the choice to follow paths in our short life span.

“yes... we can choose... whether this is a free choice or not we will never know (as it would feel the same: free will/determinism are again theories of this world in which could both be wrong) so, "we" exist as a collective? as we are all made of ever moving energy that changes in forms to be born and dissipates at death. But does that mean that "we" in our current form do not exist? do we have memory of ourselves in energy form? “

Do we exist as a collective free will or simply as solid animated thinking matter? Can we never know self determinism as a function of this flow of life? I actually disagree with the concept that this energy flow dissipates at death. In my humble opinion, this flow of free will existed before we were born (became aware of consciousness) and continues in the same form after death but without the ability to experience our place in this universe and that of cognition found during the life episode.

“ Who said anything about measurements? I simply say that we all see the same configurations: and we all have our theories on what’s actually happening. I believe it is you who are making the assumptions on what I am saying.”

Sorry about my assumptions of what you are saying. And you are again correct in stating that we all have our own theories of actuality. For the here and now we see the same configurations (measurements, QM physics observation and hypothesis) but each of us has an equally valid interpretation. At least from my perspective.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
Our reality is much like our "T.V." About 90% bull**** and fiction and the rest is reality to our bias views. And like our T.V. went it dies out no more energy comes through and the images no longer exist.

The TV-waves of the images are still send by the TV-station. My TV can still show them. Whaaw ... very nice movie!

Your TV-body still receives those waves. But your TV can not play them anymore.

 

[THANOS]

Sure the waves are still there. I said nothing about the waves. I said that we are much like the T.V. not the waves the T.V. uses to make the picture. The waves are more like the reality that surrounds us. the things that happen throughout our daily lives. When we die the people still live their lives and don't stop because we died. The plug and the energy source is much like the food we eat to keep us going. So we are like the T.V. bub! I'm a T.V.! hehehe
And much like the T.V. when we die the T.V. is still there and can not play the images. Conscience is gone, but the body remains. Only thing is the T.V. may rust and take much much longer to decompose then our physical bodies. But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
Sure the waves are still there. I said nothing about the waves. I said that we are much like the T.V. not the waves the T.V. uses to make the picture. The waves are more like the reality that surrounds us. the things that happen throughout our daily lives. When we die the people still live their lives and don't stop because we died. The plug and the energy source is much like the food we eat to keep us going. So we are like the T.V. bub! I'm a T.V.! hehehe
And much like the T.V. when we die the T.V. is still there and can not play the images. Conscience is gone, but the body remains. Only thing is the T.V. may rust and take much much longer to decompose then our physical bodies. But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist.

My next step: While your TV-set still is OK
but put-OFF it still receives waves. (that's like Jung's collective unconciousness state). We could also put the image off and only receive the sound. (that's like the personal unconciousness state). When we put the TV-set fully on: we have sound + images (which can be moving or stil). Conciousness.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist.

... and these particles of matter will also oscillate with the TV-waves IFF they are resonant.

 

[THANOS]

Sure the T.V. can be put off eh. much like our sleep or whe we close our eyes. But when the T.V. Burns out neither sound or images will be able to exist within that T.V.

Enough T.V.?

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by THANOS
Sure the T.V. can be put off eh. much like our sleep or whe we close our eyes. But when the T.V. Burns out neither sound or images will be able to exist within that T.V.

Enough T.V.?

Sure.

My conclusion (similar to other already expressed on PF but in other words):
1. We (humans) are a complex system containing a number of inter-resonant out-put sub-systems. (TV-set)
2. We gather (by a number of oscillation-sensing sub-systems) a number of intrinsic different oscillations (text, sound, still images, moving images in TV) from our (providing) surrounding which are re-distributed via a priority-focusing feedback mechanism (TV-set with preferences options like image OFF, sound ON).
3. Our surrounding is not just that what we observe with 'common senses' but includes non-local information. (cfr. TV-waves sent by TV-station).
4. We observe our surrounding in an indirect way. (depending from the available TV-waves offered by different TV-stations).
5. We can focus or have priority (choose a TV or sound or image or text channel).
6. When we decay as a total (TV-set doesn't work anymore) some of our sub-sets may still be functioning correctly (not-affected sub-parts of the TV-set, such as antenna, some condensers, chips, etc.).

 

"And much like the T.V. when we die the T.V. is still there and can not play the images. Conscience is gone, but the body remains. Only thing is the T.V. may rust and take much much longer to decompose then our physical bodies. But the fact is the matter that makes our body still exist."

Is our consciousness gone when our bodies die? Did our awareness of self just go on like a light bulb at birth and then when we die our cognizance just burn out?

Where do you think our awareness came from and where does it go after death? Before you relate such things to TV sets and signals, you have to understand exactly what you are talking about.

NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE...

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by onycho
what you are talking about.

About ... what's on my website.