8
   

morality, drugs, existence

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Nov, 2013 12:13 am
@carnaticmystery,
Spontaneous just means with no cause and not, NEVER, that it has no point in time.

As for commenting the illogical assumption that there is no reality, I can only say to you that denying it is proving it !

I never said you claimed A or B I said your assumption has no merit, it is self contradictory, whether you get why or not is behind me, and frankly I don't care.

The "involutaryness" of a process is no proof of spontaneity...in fact I tried to subtly appeal to Einstein's description of Time in relativity when I mentioned all times are actual at the very same time...In such a frame of reference a spontaneous event is just a dot, an actual event that always existed, it didn't emerge it didn't disappeared, it is glued at a point in the fabric of space time...I guess I need to be far less subtle next time I'm trying to make an elegant point.

Judgements of minds are events justified within fields of partial information that account for incompleteness n lack of certainty...

The assumption of a final set of things flows fluently n easily from the assumption of anything at all...as soon as you speak either against or in favour of reality you prove such set exists. It seams you have a fling for the null set, I don't...

I don't have a clue on what you mean with "solid reality"...any experience is real !

The point about experiences is not on knowing if their are real or not but rather to know on where they fit, which context suits their so said existence...mickey mousse has a very different context then you and me but it certainly is a valid experience.

Finally sleep is certainly not lack of experiencing but rather a precise lack of other experiences which are not sleep.

carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Nov, 2013 08:05 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Spontaneous just means with no cause and not, NEVER, that it has no point in time.

ok i dunno if english is your first language or not. but i never said spontaneity implies 'never' or 'no point in time'. of course if an event 'happens', it happens at a point in time. my point is that if there is no causative event, then the event itself happens at a random point in time, the exact time of initiation of the event is the same moment that the event was 'decided' to happen. i disagree that their exists any space time fabric with glued events. this is your own conceptual idea of the space time continuum. made up story by a made up mind.

you think my argument is self contradictory, in saying there is no reality. but simply to assert that someone is wrong, and that you can't be bothered looking further into it, is very naive. i already said that very few will agree with what i am saying, and that it obviously seems self contradictory at first. but if you look at the logic of what i am saying, it makes sense.
Quote:
The "involutaryness" of a process is no proof of spontaneity...in fact I tried to subtly appeal to Einstein's description of Time in relativity when I mentioned all times are actual at the very same time...In such a frame of reference a spontaneous event is just a dot, an actual event that always existed, it didn't emerge it didn't disappeared, it is glued at a point in the fabric of space time...I guess I need to be far less subtle next time I'm trying to make an elegant point.

something being involuntary supports the idea that it is spontaneous. nothing can prove spontaneity, or any other mind-made concept, because that is my whole argument here. that nothing is real anyway, so nothing can be proved.

what is the point of your idea, saying that the space time fabric has these glued dots of events. ok so the whole universe is predetermined, ok blah blah. i am not even arguing against any of that. i am just saying, it is an interpretation based on millions of assumptions. assumption 1: this whole existence/experience/consciousness has some reality to it.

Quote:
I don't have a clue on what you mean with "solid reality"...any experience is real !

exactly what i mean. that is the solidity i speak of. like you say 'any experience is real!' with such certainty, that is the solidity i speak of. all i am saying is, that solidity is uniform and constant, and has been forever. everything, including your mind, comes from that reality. so to define it as 'real' or 'existent' is just another word.

Quote:
Finally sleep is certainly not lack of experiencing but rather a precise lack of other experiences which are not sleep

this is wrong. yes certain sleep states include experience, this is not deep sleep. it is dream states. the dream states encompass anything from a single flicker of experience during sleep, to a full fledged vivid dream. but, whether you know or believe this or not, there is certainly a deep sleep state which cannot be described by any experience, and is when all experience stops.

you seem to be an educated mathematician, physicist, whatever. philosopher also obviously. but whatever it is, all human sciences are the same. consciousness looking further into itself, which will always just be an infinite process.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2013 04:08 pm
@carnaticmystery,
1 - A spontaneous event requires the process of time in order to be spontaneous, it assumes time in the absolute background of reality. But an even which is eternal, even if ordered in a chain of events, (arguably without cause) can't be said "created" nor did it comes to be by spontaneity...the fact there is an order in the a chain of events, is no proof neither of causation nor of spontaneity for the exact same reason, that is, let me repeat, time needs not be assumed as an absolute reference.
"Spontaneity" refers to human observation inside the chain of time, but that in no way is reason of proof time is of primary order.

2 - If you can't get why denying reality implies a reality then this conversation is over.
To use Set motto, give it another go Bubba...
Abishai100
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2013 09:35 pm
@carnaticmystery,
If you're ever seen the American television program "Restaurant Stakeout" (Food Network), you may be familiar with modern era fascination with venture surveys.

Humans are curious about ambition as it relates to energy, sociology, and economic hygiene.

If we market the right programs with the sophistication of modern media, we may be able to tackle the sensitivity vanities that cloud our judgments about "nihilistic" happiness.

The revolution will not be televised...as long as TV does not become a new drug.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 09:50 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
1 - spontaneity does not require the process of time at all. if you accept a process of time, spontaneity fits into it. if you choose to deny time and call it an eternal now, then spontaneity is still possible. within the eternal now, 'events' are still happening. if the eternal event is the moment now, then there are still lower degree 'events' that are occurring within the eternity. all i am saying, is that all these events are spontaneous.
2 - i am not actually denying reality, just questioning it. it may or may not be. you are saying that just by me existing and questioning reality, this implies a reality? if this is your argument, it is very limited. this conversation may be over any time, doesn't bother me lol. i don't actually understand what you are trying to prove, other than that i am wrong?

my whole point here is simply that this entire reality or existence is definitely questionable, in my experience. the simple idea that your personal consciousness is proof of a 'reality' is very naive. all ideas of space, time, reality, existence, science, philosophy. they are all just words made up by humans, with more and more complexity in meaning. you choose to believe in some 'ultimate reality' behind it all. belief is always a game of duality. play if you choose.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2013 09:57 pm
@Abishai100,
um no never seen it, and has a terrible imdb rating so probably won't. dunno if i understand what you are saying. that because of the media, people are searching for the wrong 'happiness' instead of the correct nihilistic 'happiness'? tv and all entertainment is already a 'drug' if you want to label it that way, there are as many people 'addicted' to it as to real drugs. i have no idea what 'revolution' you are talking about though.

essentially, i would say nihilism is close to what i am talking about, except that it has negative connotations, whereas i am trying to describe complete neutrality. 'nothingness' also has negative connotations i guess, so it is tough. but yeah, i am not actually saying that i believe that nothing exists, i am saying that when the question of existence is looked at very carefully, a completely neutral, paradoxical 'existence' shows itself, and it is very questionable as to whether it is real or not.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 09:07 pm
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

1 - spontaneity does not require the process of time at all. if you accept a process of time, spontaneity fits into it. if you choose to deny time and call it an eternal now, then spontaneity is still possible. within the eternal now, 'events' are still happening. if the eternal event is the moment now, then there are still lower degree 'events' that are occurring within the eternity. all i am saying, is that all these events are spontaneous.
2 - i am not actually denying reality, just questioning it. it may or may not be. you are saying that just by me existing and questioning reality, this implies a reality? if this is your argument, it is very limited. this conversation may be over any time, doesn't bother me lol. i don't actually understand what you are trying to prove, other than that i am wrong?

my whole point here is simply that this entire reality or existence is definitely questionable, in my experience. the simple idea that your personal consciousness is proof of a 'reality' is very naive. all ideas of space, time, reality, existence, science, philosophy. they are all just words made up by humans, with more and more complexity in meaning. you choose to believe in some 'ultimate reality' behind it all. belief is always a game of duality. play if you choose.


First of all yes spontaneity although implying no causation is nonetheless referring to the starting of a process n thus necessarily requires that events start to exist at some point, such that time processing must be assumed at background in order to bring meaning to the concept of spontaneity as it is defined and known by people in this planet. You saying it doesn't just because doesn't make it a fact but rather a claim that you cannot possibly justify.

More I have no clue on what you mean with "lower degree" events in the context of an eternal medium as time is the order of events and in an eternal medium all events are simultaneous not having a starting point nor an end, they are an ensemble, and one where there is nothing to spawn n thus nothing to talk about spontaneity.

Third n bluntly put, questioning reality requires the reality of questioning which in turn assumes a reality by definition or you wouldn't be questioning zilch.

...from that mash of nonsense you proceed to assume that I, as Descartes once did, am assuming the focus of existence in the self, but it needs not be the case, I can with more humble beginnings reduce my claim to the admittance of experiences without defining the nature of the experiencer as an "I", although I admit in the least experiencing requires focal points of perception, "perspectivism".

Again my conclusion is that you ought to think more read better n post less. (this advice is actually good for anyone)
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 08:57 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
lol, your posts are funny because you strive so hard to use complex vocabulary and make it difficult to understand. but all it does is reduce the actual content of what you are saying to a very small amount.
Quote:
First of all yes spontaneity although implying no causation is nonetheless referring to the starting of a process n thus necessarily requires that events start to exist at some point, such that time processing must be assumed at background in order to bring meaning to the concept of spontaneity as it is defined and known by people in this planet. You saying it doesn't just because doesn't make it a fact but rather a claim that you cannot possibly justify.

i agree that if you want to deny the existence of 'events', then the idea of spontaneity has no relevance. i only mention spontaneity with regard to any supposed 'event'. i only claimed that even if you deny time by implying eternity, then the idea of spontaneity can still have relevance, if you still consider 'events' to exist.
Quote:
More I have no clue on what you mean with "lower degree" events in the context of an eternal medium as time is the order of events and in an eternal medium all events are simultaneous not having a starting point nor an end, they are an ensemble, and one where there is nothing to spawn n thus nothing to talk about spontaneity.

i have no problem with seeing the unity of all, blah blah, all that you are saying about an ensemble, no start or end. i'm saying that in everyday consciousness, events appear to happen to people. events appear to happen in your mind. i am just theorising that in my opinion, all events are spontaneous. your rebuttal is that spontaneity is a limited concept which requires time, which doesn't exist in eternity. lol. lower degree events are self explanatory, if the eternal 'event' is the eternal now, lower degree 'events' are any arbritarily defined events within the eternity. of course everything is happening simultaenously in reality, as you say, because there is only ever a now, but through memory we can recall separate 'events'.
Quote:
Third n bluntly put, questioning reality requires the reality of questioning which in turn assumes a reality by definition or you wouldn't be questioning zilch.

questioning reality does not require any reality. only because you assume a reality, you then conclude that a questioner must be stupid to question reality. i am also not concluding that there is 'no reality'. i am just questioning it. in questioning so-called reality, my conclusion is that there is no definable reality other than 'nothingness'. perhaps the nothingness could also be described as an infinite potentiality of all existence. but the actual 'existence' of something is still questionable, because one can never actually determine the reality of the experience or the experiencer. it is always a fleeting experience, a consciousness of something, but what it is that is conscious nobody can ever know. whether you choose to say there is one 'reality', 'god', 'existence', 'consciousness', it doesn't matter. i am just saying the ultimate itself is questionable. the current experience of 'reality' is not proof of a reality, this is a limited perspective. if you cannot see that, i can't help.
Quote:
...from that mash of nonsense you proceed to assume that I, as Descartes once did, am assuming the focus of existence in the self, but it needs not be the case, I can with more humble beginnings reduce my claim to the admittance of experiences without defining the nature of the experiencer as an "I", although I admit in the least experiencing requires focal points of perception, "perspectivism".

i never assumed any such thing haha. you can 'admit' experiences all you like, i am just saying you are assuming a background reality without questioning it.
Quote:
Again my conclusion is that you ought to think more read better n post less. (this advice is actually good for anyone)

i doubt i need to think more, also i don't believe in any control over the mind, it is run by the intellect which operates constantly and involuntarily. what you read is also governed by your intellect, again involuntary. me posting less may or may not happen, depending on when i get bored of this argument. at the moment its interesting, it just seems to me like you are trying your best to prove you are intellectually superior to me. well keep trying, but in my opinion i have logically answered all your points and given valid counter arguments.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Nov, 2013 09:44 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

lol, your posts are funny because you strive so hard to use complex vocabulary and make it difficult to understand. but all it does is reduce the actual content of what you are saying to a very small amount.
Quote:
First of all yes spontaneity although implying no causation is nonetheless referring to the starting of a process n thus necessarily requires that events start to exist at some point, such that time processing must be assumed at background in order to bring meaning to the concept of spontaneity as it is defined and known by people in this planet. You saying it doesn't just because doesn't make it a fact but rather a claim that you cannot possibly justify.

i agree that if you want to deny the existence of 'events', then the idea of spontaneity has no relevance. i only mention spontaneity with regard to any supposed 'event'. i only claimed that even if you deny time by implying eternity, then the idea of spontaneity can still have relevance, if you still consider 'events' to exist.
Quote:
More I have no clue on what you mean with "lower degree" events in the context of an eternal medium as time is the order of events and in an eternal medium all events are simultaneous not having a starting point nor an end, they are an ensemble, and one where there is nothing to spawn n thus nothing to talk about spontaneity.

i have no problem with seeing the unity of all, blah blah, all that you are saying about an ensemble, no start or end. i'm saying that in everyday consciousness, events appear to happen to people. events appear to happen in your mind. i am just theorising that in my opinion, all events are spontaneous. your rebuttal is that spontaneity is a limited concept which requires time, which doesn't exist in eternity. lol. lower degree events are self explanatory, if the eternal 'event' is the eternal now, lower degree 'events' are any arbritarily defined events within the eternity. of course everything is happening simultaenously in reality, as you say, because there is only ever a now, but through memory we can recall separate 'events'.
Quote:
Third n bluntly put, questioning reality requires the reality of questioning which in turn assumes a reality by definition or you wouldn't be questioning zilch.

questioning reality does not require any reality. only because you assume a reality, you then conclude that a questioner must be stupid to question reality. i am also not concluding that there is 'no reality'. i am just questioning it. in questioning so-called reality, my conclusion is that there is no definable reality other than 'nothingness'. perhaps the nothingness could also be described as an infinite potentiality of all existence. but the actual 'existence' of something is still questionable, because one can never actually determine the reality of the experience or the experiencer. it is always a fleeting experience, a consciousness of something, but what it is that is conscious nobody can ever know. whether you choose to say there is one 'reality', 'god', 'existence', 'consciousness', it doesn't matter. i am just saying the ultimate itself is questionable. the current experience of 'reality' is not proof of a reality, this is a limited perspective. if you cannot see that, i can't help.
Quote:
...from that mash of nonsense you proceed to assume that I, as Descartes once did, am assuming the focus of existence in the self, but it needs not be the case, I can with more humble beginnings reduce my claim to the admittance of experiences without defining the nature of the experiencer as an "I", although I admit in the least experiencing requires focal points of perception, "perspectivism".

i never assumed any such thing haha. you can 'admit' experiences all you like, i am just saying you are assuming a background reality without questioning it.
Quote:
Again my conclusion is that you ought to think more read better n post less. (this advice is actually good for anyone)

i doubt i need to think more, also i don't believe in any control over the mind, it is run by the intellect which operates constantly and involuntarily. what you read is also governed by your intellect, again involuntary. me posting less may or may not happen, depending on when i get bored of this argument. at the moment its interesting, it just seems to me like you are trying your best to prove you are intellectually superior to me. well keep trying, but in my opinion i have logically answered all your points and given valid counter arguments.


1 - I strive to use simple and plain vocabulary, I am a non native English speaker, I didn't use any complex language at any point in our conversation, although I have referred to complex concepts. Its not my problem that you don't grasp what they mean. In fact the reason I replied to your nonsense instead of a straight ignore function was based on the assumption you are very young, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

2 - I don't want to deny the existence of events, I challenge you to quote me on that not just in this thread but anywhere on the all forum on that regard. Quite on the contrary I am asserting their existence against your questioning them, as questioning reality questions the existence of any events at all in case you haven't notice.

3 - Again events need a background where to occur such as space and time, but space n time need not be the ultimate structure of reality. In fact if they are not then events although ordered in past present and future exactly as they are now can still be said part of an ensemble. Once all the structure of spacetime itself co-exists.

4 - I wonder if you are not trolling when in your attempt to rebut the simplest of my assertions you state you don't need a real question to question the real...I can only conclude either you didn't spare 2 seconds to think on the matter or that you are beyond hope. Obviously in order to question anything at all there must be questions so to state that there is questioning. How thick can you be to not get it is beyond me.

Finally I don't want to prove anything to you, if anything the arguments speak for themselves, you should be concerned with the arguments pal not with me. I tell what either the next time you attempt a rebut you do show an honest inclination to address the points with some care or you will go straight to my ignore list. This is your last warning, I have better things to do then wasting my time with idiocy.
carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 09:37 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
1 - I strive to use simple and plain vocabulary, I am a non native English speaker, I didn't use any complex language at any point in our conversation, although I have referred to complex concepts. Its not my problem that you don't grasp what they mean. In fact the reason I replied to your nonsense instead of a straight ignore function was based on the assumption you are very young, so I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

hahaha you think your concepts are too complex for me, but it is you who is stuck on the level of concepts, and can't take the ultimate step beyond them. i understand all your concepts 100%. i said you strive to use complex language, not that i didn't understand it, lol. also, i would love it if you ignored me sir. i mean i couldn't win this battle any easier, with a straight up forfeit from you.
Quote:
2 - I don't want to deny the existence of events, I challenge you to quote me on that not just in this thread but anywhere on the all forum on that regard. Quite on the contrary I am asserting their existence against your questioning them, as questioning reality questions the existence of any events at all in case you haven't notice.

i didn't say you wanted to deny events. i said your silly theory that spontaneity is impossible because it relies on time, only holds true if you deny the existence of any discrete events. so i understand that you want to 'assert their existence', but your theory proves otherwise. if spontaneity requires time, then events require time. if events exist in an ensemble, then the spontaneity still exists within the ensemble. you are being simple minded by saying that if there is an infinite ensemble, then spontaneity cannot exist. you just get stuck on words, because you are more concerned that your perspective is shown to be correct. i personally don't care about concepts such as spontaneity, space, time, existence. these are random musings. also, it is only because there is some truth in my words that you are bothering to respond.
Quote:
3 - Again events need a background where to occur such as space and time, but space n time need not be the ultimate structure of reality. In fact if they are not then events although ordered in past present and future exactly as they are now can still be said part of an ensemble. Once all the structure of spacetime itself co-exists.

ok, you think what you said above is one of your 'complex concepts'. unfortunately no, i get it fully. it is just meaningless to me though, what are you trying to prove? is the argument about spontaneity or reality now? i don't know anymore. i am only arguing for spontaneity because you are denying it. i am only arguing against reality because you are trying to assert it.
Quote:
4 - I wonder if you are not trolling when in your attempt to rebut the simplest of my assertions you state you don't need a real question to question the real...I can only conclude either you didn't spare 2 seconds to think on the matter or that you are beyond hope. Obviously in order to question anything at all there must be questions so to state that there is questioning. How thick can you be to not get it is beyond me.

you wonder if i'm trolling because you only see the simple minded view of 'questioning reality'. if you just sit there and say 'is there a reality? ohhh wait here i am asking the question. yep there must be reality.' then yes, congrats to you, you can stop at that level of inquiry. if you go a bit further, you can actually question yourself also. how do you know you exist. because you have some sensory experiences constantly happening. something feels like it is happening in your body and mind. but the source of that feeling of consciousness can never be fully arrived at. so, you are assuming that 'experience' is real, even though you are unable to get to its source? you can't actually know for sure what is the source of your consciousness, yet you believe it is real 100%, just because some sort of 'experience' is happening in your 'consciousness'. when you really question the consciousness itself, and try and find out what is the subject, the observer, 'yourself', eventually, or at least in my case, i concluded that there is 'nothing' there. hence my conclusion that all of 'reality' is just an illusion of a primary consciousness which cannot be said to exist outside its own self-defined 'existence'.

you say
Quote:
you state you don't need a real question to question the real...I can only conclude either you didn't spare 2 seconds to think on the matter or that you are beyond hope. Obviously in order to question anything at all there must be questions so to state that there is questioning.

in order to question anything, there must be a question. yes. but that sentence is made of english words, from which we derive meanings. the idea of a question is just a concept. so now i want to question reality. reality is also a concept. if you assume a reality, then of course, to question it, one needs a real question. but if you stop assuming a reality (yes of course its paradoxical because 'you' appear to exist and are questioning), but if you just try anyway, it becomes obvious that there is no way to assert a reality either, except by trusting your own conscious experience. if you negate consciousness completely, there is nothing else to find except empty nothingness. therefore, this empty nothingness could also be the only true 'reality'.

to conclude, again, please ignore me, because it is clear that what i am saying is not quite being understood. this was my thread, your opinions have been amusing to me, so thank you.

Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 10:22 am
The bible seems to okay drug use-
"Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will bear, because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing" -(Ezekiel 47:12)

So if weed or whatever eases physical and mental pain who can argue with that?
Even booze is fine; Jesus turned 120 gallons (repeat 120 gallons) of water to wine at a wedding reception, and at the last supper he told his mates- "The next time I drink wine, i'll be drinking it fresh and new with you in my fathers kingdom".
That's me out then, I don't drink (sniffle)
On the other hand he warned us not to "weigh down" our brains with drunkenness (Luke 21:34), so the moral seems to be to enjoy your god-given tipple (and drugs) but don't overdo it or your brain will turn to mush..Smile
(PS-I've never drank, smoked or drugged, I just never bothered)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 10:31 am
@carnaticmystery,
A spontaneous event requires an origin point in time not just in space it requires processing. In turn the organization of discrete events in X dimensions need not assume time is of primary order. This is well know in academic studies on the matter, check for models of the Universe with no background in the equation.

In a medium on which time itself can be decontructed or that is not of primary order at background there is no process, no emergence, no action, and therefore no spontaneity. Events although circumscribed in X dimensions as a discrete chain of phenomena are an eternal ensemble without any point of origin.

Unless you can demonstrate how motion, process, can occur without time you have no chance of making a point, once your argument was precisely to proceed from my initial assumption while stating that even if an eternal medium is true events can still be described as spontaneous which of course is false.

Regarding your nonsensical babbling on "reality being an illusion" let me confront you yet with another very crystal clear foot note.
In order for reality to be an illusion, it requires the assumption, the illusion of reality, is itself real, a REAL ILLUSION, in which case illusion becomes itself the ground of reality. You as millions of others in this world fail to abstractly grasp the subtle trickery your pseudo argument puts you in. In resume you sir are an arrogant ignorant making a fool of yourself in a public space. Thankfully you cannot erase the record of your nonsense so it can be witnessed by any reader of this thread.

I will proceed for the ignore button now as it was clearly demonstrated you have nothing meaningful to say.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 10:40 am
Regarding "reality", what is it exactly?
For examp, this is a static pic, but after our eyes feed it to the brain, our brains wrongly process the information and tell us it's moving-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rotsnake.jpg
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 10:51 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Regarding "reality", what is it exactly?
For examp, this is a static pic, but after our eyes feed it to the brain, our brains wrongly process the information and tell us it's moving-

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/rotsnake.jpg



Romeo...by now we realize that you have access to a site posting optical illusions...and we realize that there are optical illusions.

The reasons they are called optical illusions is because they are illusions...and the illusion if played on the optical functions of the brain.

Yes...our minds can be tricked...and often are.

But REALITY IS what actually IS.

I enjoy your several optical illusions...but you are beating that particular horse...and the poor beast is obviously dead.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 11:13 am
Ah, but illusions go far deeper than mere optics..Smile
For examp, atheists say "Based on OUR observations, there's no God", but deists say "Based on OUR observations oh yes there is!"
So which of those groups are under an illusion/delusion based on their own perceptions and conclusions about "reality"?
Incidentally a passage in 2 Thess 2 mentions a "delusion" -
"[Satan] will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness"

Likewise, soccer fans say it's the "greatest game in the world" but that's exactly what Babe Ruth said about baseball, so who's right?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/ExIS/babe.jpg~original

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 11:28 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Romeo Fabulini wrote:

Ah, but illusions go far deeper than mere optics..Smile
For examp, atheists say "Based on OUR observations, there's no God", but deists say "Based on OUR observations oh yes there is!"
So which of those groups are under an illusion/delusion based on their own perceptions and conclusions about "reality"?
Incidentally a passage in 2 Thess 2 mentions a "delusion" -
"[Satan] will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness"

Likewise, soccer fans say it's the "greatest game in the world" but that's exactly what Babe Ruth said about baseball, so who's right?

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/PoorOldSpike/ExIS/babe.jpg~original




I do not know nor do I particularly care.

But an illusion is an illusion...and you enjoying doing this kind of thing is you enjoying doing this kind of thing.

Think I'm gonna go out and play 9 holes. See yez in a bit.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 11:31 am
@Romeo Fabulini,
Again, and just how does your lack of knowledge on which of those is true changes the fact that one is true if one is true ?
I may or may not know that Washington DC is the capital of the USA, although of course my lack of knowledge or certainty on which is true wont change the fact that Washington DC is indeed the capital of the USA.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 11:53 am
Fil Albuquerque said- "@RF- Again, and just how does your lack of knowledge on which of those is true changes the fact that one is true if one is true ?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Admittedly I know zilch about baseball but I've just googled around and found this tutorial vid which I hope will enlighten me-

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 12:02 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
I think I was not sufficiently clear on what was conceived to be brought to your attention...I didn't question you about your knowledge on the rules of baseball I confronted you with lack of knowledge or certainty on which of those baseball or football are the greatest sport in the world. Your lack of knowledge is no proof that one of them isn't the greatest sport in the world if one of them is the greatest sport in the world.

There is a (dangerous) old saying on which is stated:
Absence of proof is no proof of absence.
0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Nov, 2013 12:30 pm
Fil said: ....I confronted you with lack of knowledge or certainty on which of those baseball or football are the greatest sport in the world....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah but what is "knowledge and certainty" in this dreamworld we call "reality"?
"Strawberry Fields, nothing is real" (The Beatles)
"We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded with a sleep.." (The Tempest)
"You can be in my dream if I can be in your dream" (Bob Dylan)
"All that we see or seem, is but a dream within a dream"- Edgar Allen Poe
"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes" (Bible: James 4:14)
"There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition; the Twilight Zone"- Rod Serling

Speaking of the Twilight Zone, this episode called "The Arrival" features an airliner that lands without a crew or passengers.
The investigator is so convinced that the plane is just an illusion that he pushes his hand into the whirling prop blades at 16:30-

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
umm, why are my testicles moving? - Question by soccopuppet
Is this because of boredom or drugs? - Discussion by The Pentacle Queen
The idiotic 'war on drugs' - Discussion by gungasnake
Can any illegal drug be good for someone? - Discussion by secondchance
Take a Little Trip - Discussion by cjhsa
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2022 at 06:27:21