Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Just checking in on the fish

  1. Sep 5, 2003 #1
    So one of the fish has it's own forum, nice. Is the bowl bigger or does it just have mirrors?

    Waiting..... or not.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 5, 2003 #2
    Hi Tenyears !

    Have you allowed yourself to be lured back into the bowl?
  4. Sep 5, 2003 #3
    What bowl? I see only fish doing squareouts in an ocean with no begining and no end, no top and no bottom.
  5. Sep 6, 2003 #4


    User Avatar

    And hello again to the fish that thinks he is a ruler.
  6. Sep 6, 2003 #5
    TENYEARS, I had not yet noticed your absence. You seemed as active as ever.

    However, I have a question to ask you: If we are the fish, in a bowlless bowl (with no top or bottom or sides), then isn't our reach limitless? IOW, aren't we as free as we could ever hope to be? After all, if you happen to escape an infinite bowl, what space have you left for "swimming"?
  7. Sep 6, 2003 #6
    Your reach is as great as your realization of what is and nothing more. Like I said, what bowl.
  8. Sep 6, 2003 #7
    And yet what is it that we're reaching towards? What is there to attain ... if not the art of Zen? :wink:
  9. Sep 6, 2003 #8
    What difference does it make then that we are in a "bowl" and you claim (claim, mind you, as you've proven nothing of the sort) that you are not. If you can realize beyond that which you realize, then you are "outside of the bowl". Until you realize that which you do not realize, you will never leave the "bowl", and realizing without relizing is self-contradictory/paradoxical, thus logically impossible.
  10. Sep 6, 2003 #9
    Are we capable of thinking our own thoughts? Or, is it imperative that we rely on science for the answer?
  11. Sep 6, 2003 #10
    Even if you rely on science, you do so of your own initiative, and are thus still thinking your own thoughts. Besides, I wasn't referring to science, but to logic.
  12. Sep 6, 2003 #11
    Even so, I think this is what TENYEARS is referring to by the "fish bowl." That by relying exclusively on science for the answers, we are not thinking for ourselves, and are indeed limiting "our perception" of reality. And he does have a point. :wink:
  13. Sep 6, 2003 #12
    Just because something is recognized as logical does not mean it is. Real honest logic can take you to the edge of what you percieve to be your boarders, but then it is up to you in a moment of unknowing to pass through the threshold.
  14. Sep 6, 2003 #13
    That was my interpretation of TENYEARS' philosophy, until I read the thread about the "Bowlless Bowl". In it s/he indicated that there are no boundaries or limits to this "bowl" that we are in, and so now my opinion of this philosophy has changed: Now I don't see the point in preaching liberation, since we have infinite space as it is :smile:.
  15. Sep 6, 2003 #14
    Whatever limits or restrictions we can percieve or imagine we will find a way to break them, although I would like to know more accurately what those restrictions are.
  16. Sep 6, 2003 #15
    Yet if I know no boarders there is no threshold to pass through. It is we who create our boarders thus our thresholds thus limit our reach. This mentat is what I have been trying to tell you in other ways in other threads. We may be in reality in a fishbowl. But our reality is only in our minds.
    Greetings Tenyears Good to hear from you again.
  17. Sep 6, 2003 #16
    Except that science has defined the limits, and this is what most people adhere to, at least on this forum anyway. :smile:
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2003
  18. Sep 6, 2003 #17
    Iacchus32, that is exactly my point. Science at that point becomes nothing but a fact in a game of jepordy. Disjointed images and symbols. Truth requires one to go beyond that and not by dismissing what is obviously true and esential, but by that which is not.

    Take IQ for example. I have always known it was a function of all human beings to have absolute intelligence. In 1987 I became a witness to it in a state of certainty. Only now there was a study of IQ and found it to be a function of nature VS nurture and it was found that nurture was found to be statistically a great factor in IQ. Obviously science is really not to swift for this to not have been done for so long.

    Did you know that it was posted in the US News or a similar type magazine that the US goverentment used to use remote viewing to search for soviet missle sites and etc... The government knows it is real. Most governments do. Is it a great conspiracy to withhold the truth, so that people will not believe in themselves so they may be controlled. Personally I would not give a damm, but the planet as we know it is being destroyed and from what I have witnessed, life continues the how is up to you.
  19. Sep 6, 2003 #18
    But there would be no threshold - nor, indeed, any borders - if the bowl is (as you say) without top or bottom or sides.
  20. Sep 6, 2003 #19
    Mentat, there may be a day when you realize what I am saying. If you are trying to catch me you would better try to squeeze water with your hands, if the question is true watch where you step, it is said there a whales that can consume you even upon dry land.

    Good to talk with you all.
  21. Sep 6, 2003 #20
    If you were really correct, you would address my objections direcly, instead of side-stepping them. I don't know if you've noticed yet (though I credit you with an at least average intelligence), but the members of the PFs (for the most part) are not disuaded by your mystic comments that serve as a smoke-bomb to disguise your escape of logical discussion.
  22. Sep 6, 2003 #21
    Are you suggesting that there's a flaw in the theory of evolution then, in the sense that we haven't really adapted to the environment, as much as we've gotten it to adapt to us, to whatever it is that "suits our fancy?"

    While all we have to do is think about something and bam, here we have the next Hoover Dam! Or, a new freeway interchange ... or, a new sky-scraper ... or, some new synthetic material ...

    And, while it may not be such a big deal if these things were allowed to evolve over the eons, as adaptations, like the rest of mother nature, this is not the way it's happened. In fact the whole thing seems to have mushroomed up overnight, like some widespread fungus or disease, while ravaging everything in its sight.

    Whereas just like any other "deluded" parasite, it has the gall to say, our relationship has evolved "naturally," and is strictly "symbiotic."
  23. Sep 6, 2003 #22
    I think TEN is suggesting that we're going in the wrong direction- that we need to rely on common sense, but not so much of logic. I can't grasp it's exact intent, because there's no context.

    I know I've made some jokes about this (glug glug) but I'll adress it seriously now. I know the reference you're making, I've heard it made in other terms. You're basically saying that even if we reached the limits of the bowl an escaped beyond, we would not understand because it's so foreign to us. Science is a tool. But we must realize that like any other tool, it's only as useful as the person using it. And it has it's limitations. Science isn't complete, but many people use it as if it were. However we are not limited completely. The only limits are those of our imagination, and that is limiless as long as we keep improving it. We must realize finally that there is no bowl, that in fact our bowl is the universe, and we may only go as high as the water allows us, but if we've run out of water, then we must add more;) It's all very zen

    Life is but a play, the earth is a stage, and we are the poor, poor players that walk upon it.
  24. Sep 6, 2003 #23
  25. Sep 6, 2003 #24
    Iacchus32, I was going to say this 10 times before, but I did not but since you are aware of what I a refering to you would be able to continue the projection. In past evoulution, the amount and diversity of life was 10 fold of what it is today. The distinction rate is far beyond the rate of new species and of the species that are left the ability to for them to mutate over a period of time to adapt is beyond any curve. The rate of land consumption and encroachment of society has caused stresses beyond what is realized because it has not yet be thought about yet. Cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, cats, rats snakes and birds. That is what will be left. Oh, yes and farm raised fish which may be killed off due to the inability of natural selection to take it's course which will weaken the stock and cause it to have to be maniplated via chemicals, DNA, etc...

    There is no symbiotic relationship.

    There are things I know that I have not even spoken or alluded to on this forum.
  26. Sep 6, 2003 #25
    Ok now I understand- enviornmentalism. I guess yes we can actually be seen as a "virus", consuming all natural resources, changing the ecology of the earth to suit us, and generally wreaking havoc on our surroundings instead of living in harmony with it like the rest of the life on this planet has done.

    As far as you not sharing your ideas with us, I can't fathom why- I don't think you'll find a more receptive bunch to new ideas than here on this forum.
    Last edited: Sep 6, 2003
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook