|
Post by sammy on Sept 15, 2010 14:26:05 GMT
I realize you havnt involved yourself as initiative toward the religious aspect, its just a good example for me to use. One could decide to not believe in gravity no matter the hard evidence in front of them. Many refute the possibility that a deity exists. When they jump off of a building, gravity will not ask about their beliefs or opinions.
Eventualy this body will die and bring us to our day of judgement. Even if you dont believe in God he believes in you to find the home he has made for you, on Earth and in heaven.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 15, 2010 16:51:36 GMT
"The reality of perception" Answer me this, what do you see here?
O O O O
Do you see a square or 4 circles? Lets say the surface area of the circles matches that of the square, would it be more one then the other? The truth is that its whatever you see it as because everything is relative. Perception like lines defines that existence.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 15, 2010 22:59:00 GMT
Moving out of the way does not "believe" the bullet away. One can believe all that they wish, that doesn't change objective reality. It isn't my .357 by the way. I don't own a .357, I have other items but not a .357.
Bio-feedback, which is known about and is something that I use often for pain control and it got me through chemo, is not a mystical quality at all.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 15, 2010 23:12:41 GMT
Sammy, I would not be so quick to decide what my personal beliefs are. I am actually very religious and I am involved in a few initiatic orders that are spiritual in nature.
Regarding perception (thank you for selecting a field that I am quite comfortable with) I think that we already discussed the particular limitations of our biological organs and what we know of as "optical" illusions.
Regarding your illustration. There are four circles there. A square and a circle are clearly defined in objective reality are they not? A square is not a circle. You made a comment that "perception like lines defines that existence." I offer you this, also mentioned earlier I think (if it wasn't mentioned it should have been). You and a bumblebee view a rose. You and the bee have eyes that are different, they have evolved to fulfill certain functions in a certain way and natural selection has made them that way. You and the bee will not see the same color. The bumblebee can see more bands of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Regardless of what you or the bee see, the rose still exists as it is.
Since you have kindly introduced the religious element to this discussion, thank you for that as it opens many more interesting doors on an already productive discussion, it is important for us to understand that each individual is not Gawd. We are small parts of creation. I agree with a prayer written in the Secret of Secrets by one of the old time great Sufi masters, Abdul Qadir al-Gelani (may the Most High keep his secret). His prayer stated that we should observe and examine the universe and the world and understand this line from the prayer "Oh Allah! You did not create this without reason."
Science and the remarkable findings that happen daily now could serve to improve one's understanding of creation and the deity or deities interaction with this level of existence.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 16, 2010 12:20:33 GMT
I was meaning a figurative "you" with the God believes in you thing not you personaly, and I just meant your .357 story not literaly. If what we have been discussing is real, on its best day we might see someone overcome a mental disease or find peace of mind. I remember a certain someone performing miracles and casting out demons, but he couldnt wish away the cross.
We are not a level of diety wich im hoping you didnt assume I was saying, it was not meant. I think we are from God though and some of us take after that in our brains processess, how else could he have talked to us if we didnt share something with him.
You never said if you thought it was more circles then a square BTW hehe. The point of this exercise is to show the bee/rose thing. We are both familiar with circles and squares, but the way its presented is left to interpretation.
P.S. This is my 3rd post on this page, and im not sure if you saw the 1st of these but theres a 4th in this line, the last post on page 3.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 16, 2010 16:14:05 GMT
I think the frame of mind you might be missing that im trying to portray is that someone psychotic would be having delusions, but that is in real time. Because this is in real time they have an impact in reality, even though thier delusions werent fullfilled thier actions were unordinary because of them. It would almost be like saying because thier delusional it has no bearing on reality, wich is quite the oppisate because they become more noticable in reality since it is more of a threat to that normality. We have to share our reality no matter how unrealistic it is, because it is what we face no matter our side.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 17, 2010 1:21:38 GMT
The delusions would be in real time, I am not sure that I know of anything that isn't in real time. If you were to close your eyes the entire electro-magnetic spectrum would still exist. It would continue to exist even if you were blind and deaf from birth. Your thoughts would have no effect on that. On the same token, my eventual demise will not destroy the universe.
My .357 comments were a bit of a joke. I have been described as colorful and "rather drole" at times.
Regarding gawd talking to us. Have you proof of this? I don't remember the "certain someone" (I assume that you are referring to Jesus), I wasn't around for that. I do remember stories about it.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 17, 2010 12:45:12 GMT
What I mean by real time, is active (physical reality) or rather what they are thinking they are doing actively and the motives are delusional. There is probably close to millions who have claimed to talk to God since and before jesus. The fact (to me) that these events took place and in such proportion means something. People have changed, belongings have changed, thoughts and science has grown, perty much nothing is the same except that people still believe in God. The .357 thing didnt bother me HAHA so no worries.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 17, 2010 13:42:31 GMT
If paranoid delusions changed the nature of reality then all of those people are really out to get them, and taxes would be levied for the benefit of the taxed.
There is an objective reality. One's thoughts can be what they are but the objective reality still exists. A is A.
We can talk about god and heaven until the cows come home. There are certain problems with it. There are differing interpretations of this whole god issue because there is nothing that can be proven. There may be some differing opinions on the Pythagorean theorem but we both know how that would work out.
Then there is the mystic fallacy. It is the belief, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that there is someone or something tending the light at the end of the tunnel. If there is an afterlife that does not presuppose the existence of god. If there is a god that does not presuppose that HE would have anything to do with us. I would like to talk to the "uncaused cause of all creation" about the manner in which our bodies are put together. Not a very good design.
Religion has changed. We used to worship rocks and wind. We can also talk about everyone believing in god. Can you even be a little certain that different people are even talking about the same entity?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 17, 2010 14:05:39 GMT
If paranoid delusions changed the nature of reality then all of those people are really out to get them, and taxes would be levied for the benefit of the taxed. There is an objective reality. One's thoughts can be what they are but the objective reality still exists. A is A. This only applies if you are the person deciding on what objective reality is, who says A is A. For example color blindness, you may see Blue another may see red, but all his life he has been told it is blue, so he says BLUE when asked to name the color. If it could be proven , we would have no need of FAITH, absolutely, what then becomes of imagination. Do we stop having an imagination until we see proof? It is like the footprints in the snow, we see the footprint, we know someone has been there, but we dont know who. However I have a letter in my letterbox, it is reasonable to presume it was the postman whi made the footprints to my door. The only reality Religion has is to those who have Faith, I have asked myself this Faith question for over 50 years, I came up with this answer, 'what else is there' ? The thing that seperates Humans from all other lifeform is we need love, we need to give and receive love, their are millions to whom the only love they find is in God.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 17, 2010 14:39:09 GMT
The thing that seperates Humans from all other lifeform is we need love, we need to give and receive love, their are millions to whom the only love they find is in God.
Sad but true, families can be rough to say the least. Yes the interpretations of heaven are different because WE are all different, but the goal is one in the same. Inner focus toward an outward experience and sharing that with others. This not only helps individuals but also increases the community in spirit and that growth is shared. The reason I have hoped I didnt frustrate you is because I would have said almost your exact words 3 years ago or more. I was raised in a religious background and I had just always assumed what I saw was what I got, and all that was from God somehow. When I got older we started moving alot and changing churches and I realized nobody thought the same things, so I took the path like you to learn "how and why". I mostly circled around psychology and physics fields but also still trying to connect this to religion, because I was seeing one can explain the other. I saw so many similairities it was and is still overwhelming, and trying to explain that is intense. It wasnt untill one day I had no other explanations as to what was happening, that I started actualy questioning things I didnt believe. I would just put things I didnt believe in a big pile and not look back. This had stunted me though because I could have and do now use all thoughts I can attain for a better gain, personaly and socialy. When I was finaly able to put my theory into words I was satisfied with it had lifted a 15 year old burden off my mind, but was tied to my religious youth. It was as though I had a massive area of brain power now completely freed and started going haywire with connections. I was comming up with so many possibilities I had gone from Ill believe it when I see it to ill see it when I believe it, due to how much I had been shown I wasnt sure if anything was real anymore. To me and I know many others, faith exists because quite simply there is no other option on the table.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 17, 2010 14:50:20 GMT
To add, the way I grow is see who I was to become who I am. Likewise who I was has no idea who I am.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 18, 2010 4:08:39 GMT
I don't know if I am being clear enough. Objective reality is that which exists without our opinions. Sure a colorblind person could look at a particular surface and not see the color that everyone else does. That does not change the particular physical makeup of the surface which reflects that color (band of the electro-magnetic spectrum) back to our eyes. It is what it is.
Sammy mi amigo. What is your theory, more appropriately, what is your hypothesis, in words?
There are other options other than faith.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Sept 18, 2010 13:38:45 GMT
It is clear to me what you are saying Brandt that is not the question I have in my head.
You make statements ' It is what it is.' I am asking who decides that ' It is what it is.' Science tells us to examine and prove, that is why we skating into the Religion area, you said I can not prove God. I am asking for you to prove light to a blind man.
' It is what it is.' only if you can see it , feel it smell it, hear it.
The process of thought is a learned experience and in my opinion is to a large extent automated.
You either learn to stay alive or you die. The proof of this is all the dead people. And US.
You learn to have Faith because it works for you, it works for your brain and the way you have lived and what you think is important.
I always get there in the end. we process thought by evolution, if we keep walking off the edge of a Cliff , we soon stop it. Proof is all of us that have not walked off a cliff.
People believed there were new lands out west, no one knew or could prove it, but Faith and Imagination has made you and where you are and your life possible. If it were not for Faith , Imagination and sheer Determination you would probably not be there.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 18, 2010 15:22:27 GMT
HAHA no option to me has bearing beyond faith, hence no other option on the table. Its a choice that I will allways follow because ive lived the consequences and will never go back. My theory to me is HUGE but minute in description. Ive posted it on here as many different things because its meaning stays the same but its description changed, but I think Ive deduced it fairly well. It is as follows: "-O+". The O in this I used for neutral wich is how I still reffer to it, but I see it as all matter and energy. The + would be adding two or more of these together making something new and the overall O easier to manage. The - in this would be taking away from the O in an attempt to make the O easier to manage, but you can only ever obtain distance from the O "no energy or mass can be neither created nor destroyed". In this understanding I have been able to apply this to every aspect of my life and thought. Im actualy having problems finding what it doesnt connect to. The thoughts have brought me more understanding then I could of ever imagined. The thoughts have been growing since I was 15 however and im twice that now, and what ive posted is the result of that. Its wierd because it seems like the more complicated I see it the smaller the explanation becomes. For example for me to say "O" in my understanding would have just mentioned every partical and force in existance throughout all of time and space. In reverse example for me to explain me alive on earth would require mentioning all of the requirements for life, sun, Earth and all of that coresponding existance with what entails me being alive. I realize I dont know what all that entails, but that still leaves me believing it exists (hence life). Im not sure if this revised version actualy made it on this site... I know the second part hadnt.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 18, 2010 16:38:36 GMT
I could not explain the experience of viewing light to a blind man in the subjective terms that you are referring to Bill. I can explain the objective reality of the electro-magnetic spectrum to him though. Reality does not require our perception or acquiescence.
Sammy, since the existence of god cannot be objectively proven or even scientifically supported it is best to not use it to explain objective phenomena. For example "God created the universe" or "the universe began with the big bang." Both statements are unprovable. It is just as likely that the universe has always been and will always be.
It takes a large leap to think that some deity created all of this for reasons that only He can understand. It also takes a large leap to think that the whole thing was a matter of chance.
I still don't get your hypothesis Sammy. Could you type it out in more clear terms for me?
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 18, 2010 17:42:55 GMT
Reality requires individual perception, I cant be more clear. We have no reality if the knowledge isnt retained. Nothing would exist if the knowledge of existance wasnt retained individualy. The only real objective reality is the one weve grown into our "reality" through the said perception of action, reaction and the rettaining of that outcome. Lets say something happened that reduced humans to living in caves or similair habitats. Lets also say it takes 500 years for those humans to resurface. Suddenly one day they happen upon a town with fully stocked libraries and also still preserved. Do you think they would even be able to understand the language let alone piece together our reality? The reality at the time would be whatever they experienced and on any level. To these people if its happening its real regardless if its shared. Now lets say one of them comes upon a book of symbology, this could change the outcome of thier understanding because its representational. It shows familiarity regardless the language, forcing you to a common understanding of the meaning.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 18, 2010 17:50:39 GMT
The person you need to be to understand this is as it states, beyond your understanding untill you are that person. Once your there your there and you have no will to go back because you grew out of it. It would be like trying to unlearn addition, because you learned physics.
|
|
|
Post by rembrandt on Sept 18, 2010 19:31:42 GMT
Sammy, "Reality requires individual perception." Either you are unaware that people die and the universe continues or we are not using the same definition of reality.
|
|
|
Post by sammy on Sept 19, 2010 17:56:05 GMT
Im perfectly aware of objective reality, but because that exists so does subjective reality. In this understanding the idealistic perception to take would be in the middle of those (or the link between both) in hopes to understand it. Taking one over the other would be contradictory, instead use both to understand eachother.
|
|