I like your thinking.
Is it possible that reality is not what you think?...yes?/no?...lol
- Thread starter southflorida
- Start date
I like your thinking.
Okay folks...
For my 1500th post figured I'd throw some more crazy stuff for you all to
read, just in case you find craziness your cup of tea. This time it
will be about the big illusion of time, which will point at the fact
that we are creating our reality with our thoughts and will point
at how we are doing it. Here goes:
The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist.
And that means the present doesn't exist either,
because it's dividing what doesn't exist from another thing
that doesn't exist. This is a paradox, and the only way
out of this is to look at time as a representation.
It is only a thought, a concept, which by itself has
no fundamental reality. It helps to organize stuff, and
has been created by thought to represent succession,
so that things can succeed one another in a certain order.
Okay, now here is the really tripped out part: sort of like when someone
pulls the rug from under your feet:
The past and the future are images contained in thought, that
really don't exist in reality, only in your mind, or wherever the hell
they exist, maybe in a universal thought bank
Thought ties those images together with the present to give a sense of
movement and continuity. Using the example of a film - a cinecamera
records a series of somewhat different images.
When played back they give a sense of motion. This happens because the
brain does not distinguish images that are more than, say, a tenth or so of
a second apart; so when a lot of these images are seen rapidly they are
sensed as continuity. Similarly, a lot of grains of flowing sand might look
like water, continuous.
You can clearly see and grasp that this sense of continuity arises from
thought, which puts it all together.
This is exactly what is happening right in front of us, or wherever this is all
happening (we don't actually know for sure obviously) - our perception sees
a bunch of images that have this sense of continuity, and it is our thoughts
that we are seeing (the bunch of images) that are coming one after the other.
Since these thoughts are all distinct, and only have very small differences,
and they are coming VERY, VERY FAST, to our perception it seems as if there
is time that is flowing perfectly, while in reality there is no time.
All there is - is consciousness driving this whole mind game, and it is aware
of this whole process as itself. In other words, except for
consciousness, there really is nothing else out there.
You are not observing anything, there is no one observing you, there is only
one fast stream of consciousness and a bunch of thoughts (data) that is
being picked up by your awareness and senses, which are really the same thing.
We are all swimming in a huge ocean of data, which basically what
consciousness is. Have a good Sunday everyone
For my 1500th post figured I'd throw some more crazy stuff for you all to
read, just in case you find craziness your cup of tea. This time it
will be about the big illusion of time, which will point at the fact
that we are creating our reality with our thoughts and will point
at how we are doing it. Here goes:
The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist.
And that means the present doesn't exist either,
because it's dividing what doesn't exist from another thing
that doesn't exist. This is a paradox, and the only way
out of this is to look at time as a representation.
It is only a thought, a concept, which by itself has
no fundamental reality. It helps to organize stuff, and
has been created by thought to represent succession,
so that things can succeed one another in a certain order.
Okay, now here is the really tripped out part: sort of like when someone
pulls the rug from under your feet:
The past and the future are images contained in thought, that
really don't exist in reality, only in your mind, or wherever the hell
they exist, maybe in a universal thought bank
Thought ties those images together with the present to give a sense of
movement and continuity. Using the example of a film - a cinecamera
records a series of somewhat different images.
When played back they give a sense of motion. This happens because the
brain does not distinguish images that are more than, say, a tenth or so of
a second apart; so when a lot of these images are seen rapidly they are
sensed as continuity. Similarly, a lot of grains of flowing sand might look
like water, continuous.
You can clearly see and grasp that this sense of continuity arises from
thought, which puts it all together.
This is exactly what is happening right in front of us, or wherever this is all
happening (we don't actually know for sure obviously) - our perception sees
a bunch of images that have this sense of continuity, and it is our thoughts
that we are seeing (the bunch of images) that are coming one after the other.
Since these thoughts are all distinct, and only have very small differences,
and they are coming VERY, VERY FAST, to our perception it seems as if there
is time that is flowing perfectly, while in reality there is no time.
All there is - is consciousness driving this whole mind game, and it is aware
of this whole process as itself. In other words, except for
consciousness, there really is nothing else out there.
You are not observing anything, there is no one observing you, there is only
one fast stream of consciousness and a bunch of thoughts (data) that is
being picked up by your awareness and senses, which are really the same thing.
We are all swimming in a huge ocean of data, which basically what
consciousness is. Have a good Sunday everyone
I think this has gotten way too abstract. I think what is more relevant to the discussion of reality is how our beliefs, judgements, opinions, and just our sheer lack of paying attention shape our view of "reality". Because for most people reality isn't a question of "Is the sky really blue?" or "Does time exist?" It's more about unconscious assumptions about the human social world. Things like like "people are trustworthy", or "I'm not good at math" or "everyone is out for themselves I should be too".
Experiments in psychology have shown that there is a vast difference between the events that impinge on our senses and what we actually are aware of. And how our own preconceived notions about reality shape what we actually see or don't see.
There is a classic experiment they sometimes do in intro psych classes in college. You can see films on the internet of it. You have a bunch of guys wearing black shirts and a bunch of guys wearing white shirts. And they are passing a ball around back and forth between each other randomly. The object is for the students to count how many times the ball is passed from black shirt to black shirt. Unbeknownst to the students while they are doing this, a guy in a gorilla suit comes into class and walks through the room. Most people will not notice the gorilla AT ALL because they are so focused on the task at hand.
So the question arises, what are you not noticing in life by virtue of being focused on the task at hand, whatever that may be.
Experiments in psychology have shown that there is a vast difference between the events that impinge on our senses and what we actually are aware of. And how our own preconceived notions about reality shape what we actually see or don't see.
There is a classic experiment they sometimes do in intro psych classes in college. You can see films on the internet of it. You have a bunch of guys wearing black shirts and a bunch of guys wearing white shirts. And they are passing a ball around back and forth between each other randomly. The object is for the students to count how many times the ball is passed from black shirt to black shirt. Unbeknownst to the students while they are doing this, a guy in a gorilla suit comes into class and walks through the room. Most people will not notice the gorilla AT ALL because they are so focused on the task at hand.
So the question arises, what are you not noticing in life by virtue of being focused on the task at hand, whatever that may be.
I'd have to say that this has been the most insightful post about the nature of reality that I've seen in this thread.
sac beh
Member
I agree. Especially this part:
So the question arises, what are you not noticing in life by virtue of being focused on the task at hand, whatever that may be.
Immersion in our factical, daily lives requires that certain realities are tuned out in order to focus on what's at hand. The great lesson here is that reality and the people around us are always much more than what we see them to be at any time in our factical lives. This is transcendence, though people get confused by the word and give it religious/spiritual meanings. Transcendence is the fact that the full being of every person and of nature itself always eludes us when we're looking through the factical/everyday lens.
I can't remember if I posted this here or in a different thread, but this fundamental transcendent nature of the world is what demands respect from us. When we reduce the nature of reality or another being down to only a few facts we know about it or our view of it at a particular moment, we've done violence to it because we haven't been true, we've forgotten that it transcends. This forgetting is where racism, politics, and religion comes from.
This is summarized in what used to be my signature:
The possible ranks higher than the actual
We can talk about whatever we want in this thread, because reality
is reality. If we are talking about the small picture reality, as
cashmunny suggested, it will be a reflection of the big picture
reality that I was trying to talk about.
The primary structure is basically the same. We as conscious beings
are trying to evolve to higher states of consciousness.
We are doing quite well in relation to how we lived in the past. Not
that long ago, a few hundred years ago, children were looked at as
if they were just property, like dogs. The parents could do whatever
they wanted with the child, even kill him or her, and that would be
just fine and dandy.
And look at what was happening in the USA before Martin L. King
and the whole human equality movement happened, people based on
their skin color had to go to different toilets, schools, and stand up
for white folks on the bus if there was no other seats. This was only
about 40 years ago. That is really a very short time in relation to human
history. So we are evolving, slowly, but surely!!!
is reality. If we are talking about the small picture reality, as
cashmunny suggested, it will be a reflection of the big picture
reality that I was trying to talk about.
The primary structure is basically the same. We as conscious beings
are trying to evolve to higher states of consciousness.
We are doing quite well in relation to how we lived in the past. Not
that long ago, a few hundred years ago, children were looked at as
if they were just property, like dogs. The parents could do whatever
they wanted with the child, even kill him or her, and that would be
just fine and dandy.
And look at what was happening in the USA before Martin L. King
and the whole human equality movement happened, people based on
their skin color had to go to different toilets, schools, and stand up
for white folks on the bus if there was no other seats. This was only
about 40 years ago. That is really a very short time in relation to human
history. So we are evolving, slowly, but surely!!!
Love the new avatar SF.
Love the new avatar SF.
thanks, but it obviously can't come close to Yoda, my favorite
guru in the world, since I was around 10 when the first SW came
out, Yoda is in my subconscious as the Ultimate S.A.G.E.
We can even name a strain after him, if anyone ever crosses SAGE
with something interesting...and calls it YODA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, this is for anyone reading this thread, and interested in reality
in the small picture. Here is a quote from Tom Campbell where he
talks a little about ego. Since FEAR is the primary driver of everything
we do in life, ego and intellect are the wonder-twins that do a really
good job at creating fantasies/delusions to hide those fears from
our immediate awareness, and btw, they are very good at their job.
If some words are strange in this article, they are all explained in
his Trilogy, and the link to it is in a previous post I made in this
thread. If you are not interested in the article, obviously what
these words mean won't matter anyway.
Anyway, enjoy, this article explains quite well what is ego and
how it works:
Okay, just one more for now. Here is a woman asking how are the
koo-koo monsters like Ted Bundy, etc...created, from the perspective
of the theory that we are all immersed in a virtual reality. In other
words, why isn't everything perfect here, and why these sick folks
are a part of our society.
...btw...PMR is Physical Matter Reality, it is this reality where we
exist as human beings. While NPMR is Non-Physical Matter Reality,
which is the place where our so-called over-soul is chilling, keeping
an eye on how we are playing the game in this virtual reality (PMR).
...anyway, after reading this reply she thanks him, and here is what he writes back.
This dude is really trippy, and reading his Big Theory of Everything Trilogy was a series of insights.
The best part was that is was free, and you can read it before buying it. Obviously no one has to
buy it, but I'm going to order it in the future, just to have it in the library.
koo-koo monsters like Ted Bundy, etc...created, from the perspective
of the theory that we are all immersed in a virtual reality. In other
words, why isn't everything perfect here, and why these sick folks
are a part of our society.
...btw...PMR is Physical Matter Reality, it is this reality where we
exist as human beings. While NPMR is Non-Physical Matter Reality,
which is the place where our so-called over-soul is chilling, keeping
an eye on how we are playing the game in this virtual reality (PMR).
...anyway, after reading this reply she thanks him, and here is what he writes back.
This dude is really trippy, and reading his Big Theory of Everything Trilogy was a series of insights.
The best part was that is was free, and you can read it before buying it. Obviously no one has to
buy it, but I'm going to order it in the future, just to have it in the library.
Last edited:
The Universe as a Hologram
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html#David
.... welcome to the Holodeck !
Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?
[SIZE=-1]In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Alain Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.[/SIZE]
http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html#David
.... welcome to the Holodeck !
Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?
[SIZE=-1]In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Alain Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations.[/SIZE]
Please....everyone knows The Matrix was true and machines took our asses over, the year is really 2199 !!
Whom must determine-what it,s the reallity or not ?
And would "You" belive,if some says to you-hey-thie is not that you looks ?
Cake !
And would "You" belive,if some says to you-hey-thie is not that you looks ?
Cake !
Tuk-tuk-tuk...this makes sense to me, and I'm not even a physicist
Thanks for posting that article, that is really an interesting read.
Okay, here's one for the cause-and-affect believers, which pretty
much defines the current scientific model believed in our culture.
Would like to hear what those think of the following statement:
The thought behind objective causality confirms that everything must
be preceded by its cause...right?
But, must everything have a cause? By this I am asking does our current
physical reality (the Universe) have a cause? And by this, I'm not talking
about the Big Bang, since it is not the cause, but only the consequence
of what was there before it sort of blew its top. By this, I'm talking about
the first thing that appeared, whatever the hell that was!
If the answer is NO, then one immediately leaps to invoking mystical
beginnings. If the answer is YES, then the beginning is a logical
impossibility.
There can, by definition be no beginning if everything must have a cause.
By the logic of causality, beginnings are illogical...period!
The logic of causality requires (because we do exist...right?) the
initial existence from which we are derived to erupt spontaneously
from nothing.
Clearly, the notion of objective causality must violate its own logic
in order to get started!
Now, if anyone has a logical answer to this, I would really like to
hear it. Because if there is no logical answer, then the cause-effect
belief is simply a false assumption
If it is false, and our beginning did not have a cause-effect behind
it, then where the hell did we come from?
Please take into account that saying everything has always been
and always will be is about as absurd, and reality can't be built
on top of something that is infinite and boundless.
This is simply running away from an answer. It is what religion mostly
uses saying God has always been and always will be, and now throw
that $20 in the freaking dish going around. Don't you know we do
have plenty of monthly expenses that we have to cover!!!
So, if both of these approaches are illogical, where did everything
come from, what is the true nature of reality???
This is an important question, because if you believe one of the
above, you are most likely basing your viewpoint on a false assumption,
which makes the foundation on which you are standing a little
shaky, at least when you read these kind of things.
Please notice, in both cases the beginning is mystical.
much defines the current scientific model believed in our culture.
Would like to hear what those think of the following statement:
The thought behind objective causality confirms that everything must
be preceded by its cause...right?
But, must everything have a cause? By this I am asking does our current
physical reality (the Universe) have a cause? And by this, I'm not talking
about the Big Bang, since it is not the cause, but only the consequence
of what was there before it sort of blew its top. By this, I'm talking about
the first thing that appeared, whatever the hell that was!
If the answer is NO, then one immediately leaps to invoking mystical
beginnings. If the answer is YES, then the beginning is a logical
impossibility.
There can, by definition be no beginning if everything must have a cause.
By the logic of causality, beginnings are illogical...period!
The logic of causality requires (because we do exist...right?) the
initial existence from which we are derived to erupt spontaneously
from nothing.
Clearly, the notion of objective causality must violate its own logic
in order to get started!
Now, if anyone has a logical answer to this, I would really like to
hear it. Because if there is no logical answer, then the cause-effect
belief is simply a false assumption
If it is false, and our beginning did not have a cause-effect behind
it, then where the hell did we come from?
Please take into account that saying everything has always been
and always will be is about as absurd, and reality can't be built
on top of something that is infinite and boundless.
This is simply running away from an answer. It is what religion mostly
uses saying God has always been and always will be, and now throw
that $20 in the freaking dish going around. Don't you know we do
have plenty of monthly expenses that we have to cover!!!
So, if both of these approaches are illogical, where did everything
come from, what is the true nature of reality???
This is an important question, because if you believe one of the
above, you are most likely basing your viewpoint on a false assumption,
which makes the foundation on which you are standing a little
shaky, at least when you read these kind of things.
Please notice, in both cases the beginning is mystical.
Last edited:
sac beh
Member
I like this topic, southflorida. My question is, in order for your NO/YES options to be necessary, there is a certain definition of "beginning" necessary, right? So what are you referring to here as the beginning... the beginning of what?
Also, I believe most physicists would say that our current universe has beginnings in some version of the big bang. But the big bang itself is NOT necessarily the beginning of "everything", because quantum theories exist which postulate other universes along with the underlying mechanisms of universe creation. They also postulate that our laws of physics are contingent in such circumstances, that is, they exist in our universe and as a result of the processes which gave birth to our universe, but they do not necessarily exist outside of it.
This opens up the possibility that, while the laws of physics and the rule of causality you refer to exist and hold true in our universe, they do not necessarily before/outside of it. Thus its possible to hold to a law of causality without the logical impossibility of the "beginning" which you introduce, because the absolute beginning (if there is one) precedes the context in which causality has effect (our universe).
I made a correction there, and currently I'm talking about the
beginning of our physical universe, because from the point of
view of the currently accepted viewpoint of the masses, the
physical universe IS all there is.
So, if we are talking about the physical universe, what was the
first thing that existed in it, and where did it come from.
And this question takes into account the cause-effect approach
because this is what is currently the "masses" believe.
As I already pointed out in my previous post, this makes the cause-effect
illogical, because the FIRST THING that ever existed sort of popped
out of nowhere - which makes the beginning of cause-effect
MYSTICAL...right???
But, science does not like MYSTICAL STUFF, unless they have to use
it and then it becomes FACT, which is kind of absurd, don't you
think?
Basically, at this point the science that the masses believes
doesn't know what the first thing was, and where it came from,
because that would go against the cause-effect...false/belief.
This is why it has been swept under the rug, and they are wasting
their time with the Big Bang.
So, currently the honest answer where the Universe came from is
....WE DON'T KNOW.
At least, that is what the scientists that the masses believe would
say if they were being honest about it. Obviously they wouldn't
admit this straight out, but this is the obvious truth.
In other words, the current science accepted and believed by the masses
is really based on PSEUDO-KNOWLEDGE or what is really only beliefs/assumptions!!!
sac beh
Member
Well, like I said, there are explanations for this in for example string theory.
Not yet. If there are dimensions that exist which precede our space-time dimensions and thus our laws of physics, we have an answer to the logical inconsistency you propose. The fact that the source of the beginning of our universe is not commonly known doesn't mean it has to be mystical. Right? String theory/m-theory explain many parts of this puzzle which remove the problem your talking about.
I do wish H3ad was around to contribute here, as he has a greater knowledge of this issue than me.
But I do understand what you're saying, southflorida, and I'm just pointing out that for some physicists this is not a problem, because of the existence of other dimensions and mechanisms preceding our own.
You are talking about mystical stuff from the view of what the
masses of people currently believe. These beliefs are based on the
current scientific model that is believed/assumed to be a FACT.
Obviously the folks that believe these facts, don't think of it that
way, they think that they KNOW that these are facts.
Obviously the masses don't believe in dimensions, etc. This is currently
in the area of mystical, and not what I'm talking about.
At this time different dimensions are in the area of the Non-Physical,
and this is not widely accepted by the majority of scientists, and
obviously by the majority of the people in the Western World.
The current view is simple...all there is - is the physical...period!
And what I'm trying to point at is that besides theories we don't
really know where this Physical Universe that we are currently
living came from.
It is just as possible that none of this exists, as that it does exist,
because we simply don't know. This is the main point. Maybe we
are hallucinating this, very similar to our dreams, but we believe
that it is totally real and physical. This is not something that most
people are aware of, because they BELIEVE only in the physical reality.
And take this physical reality as an undeniable FACT. And it is NOT.
More or less, what I'm trying to say is that the majority of folks base
the things they think they know as fact on beliefs and assumptions,
not realizing that they are just beliefs/assumptions and might be false.
And then they wonder why they are unhappy and miserable!
Believing what others say is a risky business, but people seem to be doing it
by the billions.
We can say about science and government: BS...billions upon billions served,
and even though unhappy, keep coming back for more with their plates in front
of them asking for more!!!
sac beh
Member
ok, southflorida, it's clear that you're going to be closed minded on this. I hoped for something different.
You stated that something was logically impossible. I gave an example of how it didn't have to be logically impossible. You changed the conditions of your original statement and tossed out my evidence because it didn't fit those conditions. And then you proceed to make extreme, absolute statements about science being BS and physical reality not existing, yet with no evidence of your own. Sounds like a game to me, not a discussion.
You stated that something was logically impossible. I gave an example of how it didn't have to be logically impossible. You changed the conditions of your original statement and tossed out my evidence because it didn't fit those conditions. And then you proceed to make extreme, absolute statements about science being BS and physical reality not existing, yet with no evidence of your own. Sounds like a game to me, not a discussion.
