Visual reality: a new insight.

[Upchurch]

It is possible. I am sure it's possible. But to do it would require the same sort of mentality/faith possessed by Jesus.

uh-huh. So, not only do you watch too much TV, but apparently you've been watching The Matrix.

Also, to demand a miracle to verify the soundness of a rational argument is pretty silly. Miracles have nothing to do with philosophy.

It's not a miracle if your philosophy is true. It's a consequence of your philosophy. It would only be a miracle if materialism were true.

And if you're the one who is to bring the message of your philosophy to the world, I'd think you'd have that kind of mentaility and/or faith in your philosophy. Having doubts, are we?

 

[uruk]

posted by lifegazer:

as the observer accelerates, he neither approaches or recedes from the true source of that light - the mind or brain -

How do you explain red shift and blue shift? (doppler effects on light)If the "source" of "light" is the "mind". Then there would be no shifting of wavelength.

There is no evidence of a 3-dimensional reality. We begin with a 2-dimensional lightshow. The rest is infered and assumed... and then constructed to be how we see it. We are in the construct itself. We are within the mind's eye of everything. Einstein's physics confirm this. Hell, quantum mechanics confirms this.

Well, how about blind people? They have no eyes yet percieve a 3-dimensional existance by physical touching and judging those spatial distances.

Take a gander at NASA's JPL Mars probe site. Spirit and oppourtunity have binocular cameras that takes stereoscopic pictures of the surface of Mars. Computers then takes those images and generate a 3-dimensional plot or construct which allows the rover to plot a path that avoids obstacles.
There you have a machine approximation some of the processes that the human brain does in incorporating two 2-dimensional images into a 3-dimensional construct. Notice how both these
processes relie on an "actual" objective 3-dimensional reality.

The probe has no consciousness to provide a "qualia" to what it sees. the distances and measurements are there for the device to record and process. That seems to be evidence for an external reality.


there is no human brain on those probes. the computers on the probe relies on the images to generate the 3-dimensional plot.

Is the probe the source of the light that it uses to percieve mars?

 

[Acrimonious]

Is this where I post my "I told you so"?

He wouldn't read it, just as surely as he didn't bother doing the simplest google search on vision or depth perception before posting this garbage.

This thread follows the typical Lifegazer M.O.

Since it goes against his philosophy, he arbitrarily dismisses it as incorrect and not worth reading or considering.

We could have the world's greatest authorities on stereoscopic vision and the brain's occipital lobe in this forum, detailing exactly how the eyes work and how vision is processed and interpreted for all to see. Lifegazer would ignore them, throw insults at them, and post more horribly inaccurate garbage based only on his "philosophy."

I told you so.

Lifegazer has never been interested in discussion or in learning. Only in mindlessly preaching his homebrew religion, oblivious to fact, embracing obvious fallacy.

Any intelligent discussion that goes on in this forum is in spite of Lifegazer, not because of him.

 

[Beleth]

All along I've been saying that depth/distance has been infered via the action/transformation of light upon the brain's awareness.

I know. And what I am saying is that you are wrong. Nothing is inferred. The information about the distance of an object is completely, really contained in the location of the image of the object after the light from that object passes through a lens.

Please note that when I say this, I'm not talking about the images that we see (lenses et al), since these images are the consequent construct of the brain, after having deduced distance exists within the 2-dimensional information it has received.

These images are created when light passes through any lens, not just the ones in our eyes. These images exist with or without a brain to "deduce" anything.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Relativity.

Whilst we're all agreed to the fact that our actual awareness of reality is an abstract construct of the brain or mind, with distances imposed upon that awareness, I thought it might be interesting to mention this again:-

Whoa, he used whilst instead of while...he must be super smart.

"The speed-of-light is a constant because The Mind feeds the visions of that light to its own awareness.

Nope, not last time I checked. I suppose you've never attempted to read up on why the speed of light is a constant.

So, it doesn't matter what velocity the observer is [supposedly] moving at, since the light he/she sees emanates not from the sources he approaches or recedes from, but from The Mind itself."

Yup, you haven't a clue as to why the speed of light is a constant, nor the mechanism of why that occurs.

You see, Einstein's knowledge does relate to inner reality.

What you have stated represents a profound misunderstanding of what einstien discovered In no way does the speed of light as a constant have any relation to consciousness.

It says nothing of an external reality. And the constancy of lightspeed is finally explained in a way that now makes sense.

hahahahahah

Funny Guy. I Kill You Last

Why is it that you always ask questions that have been asking before, think you are the first to ask it, and then assume that no one has ever answered it before?

The reason the speed of light is a constant is already well understood, and has nothing to do with awareness.

I could also talk further of why distance and time are perceived differently by everyone, but I'll leave it for now. But the facts speak for themselves, I think.

The only thing that speaks for itself is your willful ignorance. Both in the relativity thread, and this thread, you claim that some aspect of reality is unexplained, and therefore your philosophy is required. When the actual explanation is given to you, you plug your ears and sing lalalallala (or at least I think you do, otherwise, you are by far the desnest individual I have ever met)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Any intelligent discussion that goes on in this forum is in spite of Lifegazer, not because of him.

Actually, I learn a lot from informed people who are responding to his crapola...

Not really sure if that is ' because ' of, or ' in spite ' of..

It seems like it's ' because '...

 

[RussDill]

There is no evidence of a 3-dimensional reality. We begin with a 2-dimensional lightshow. The rest is infered and assumed... and then constructed to be how we see it.

a 3d reality is no more, no less assumed than a 2d "lightshow".

We are in the construct itself. We are within the mind's eye of everything.

Prove it.

Einstein's physics confirm this. Hell, quantum mechanics confirms this.

I am sorry lifegazer, you have no grasp or understanding of either area. So to claim them as a proof just makes you look like a complete idiot.

It's only a matter of time until I put all of this together.

I won't be holding my breath. I can't wait till your next insight. I'm sure it will be totally original (unlike all the other insights and questions you have had).

Do you just intend to deny deny and deny until you die? Why?

So sorry we aren't listening to the ravings of someone who clearly hasn't a clue what he is babbling about.

 

[lifegazer]

How do you explain red shift and blue shift? (doppler effects on light)If the "source" of "light" is the "mind". Then there would be no shifting of wavelength.

Have you heard of the shapiro effect?
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

Maybe Upchurch has some more details?

Well, how about blind people? They have no eyes yet percieve a 3-dimensional existance by physical touching and judging those spatial distances.

Sure. But the mind's construct of our reality extends to more than one sense (sight). We have 4 other abstract senses, which are constructs of the mind also, created to enhance the experience of the 3-dimensional spatial universe given to awareness by the mind. There is also a sense of motion/balance.

Take a gander at NASA's JPL Mars probe site. Spirit and oppourtunity have binocular cameras that takes stereoscopic pictures of the surface of Mars. Computers then takes those images and generate a 3-dimensional plot or construct which allows the rover to plot a path that avoids obstacles.

Sure, but now we're discussing events within the 3-dimensional construct, using machines that we have built to search for details that exist within our perception of space.

Is the probe the source of the light that it uses to percieve mars?

I argue that nothing exists, except within the mind. Even the results of those machines.

 

[lifegazer]

Whoa, he used whilst instead of while...he must be super smart.

What's the relevance of this response? Is it psychologically uplifting for you?

Nope, not last time I checked. I suppose you've never attempted to read up on why the speed of light is a constant.

Yup, you haven't a clue as to why the speed of light is a constant, nor the mechanism of why that occurs.

Light, as we see it, in the glory of colour and shade and brightness, is an abstract creation given to awareness by the mind. This is a fact. All sensations are created by the entity which has them.
The source of light, is not the object depicted by that light, but the mind itself... which imposes light upon its own awareness and depicts the image of an object in the process. The objects in your mind/awareness are not real. Only a plonker would think that they had real objects within their minds. And only a plonker would think that these unreal objects were the sources of the light we see coming from them. The mind creates light as we experience it. That's no different from saying the mind creates pain as we experience it. It's a fact.

There are no real/tangible objects inside/within your awareness. The source of light within your awareness, is your mind.
Hence, 'you' can neither approach or recede from your own mind. This is why your [perceived] motion has no effect upon the speed-of-light: you position in relation to the source of that light is static, throughout.

Deal with it. It's a fact.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

This is why your [perceived] motion has no effect upon the speed-of-light: you position in relation to the source of that light is static, throughout.

Why is it just light that exhibits this phenomenon of constant velocity?

 

[Beleth]

I argue that nothing exists, except within the mind.

And we argue that the proofs you have of this is based on faulty interpretations of the evidence.

Besides, so what? If everything exists in my mind, but I don't have any way of differentiating between a world that only exists in my mind and a world that exists outside of my mind, what point is there to believe anything but what my senses tell me?

What's the difference between an external reality and a Matrix-like pseudo-reality that no one can blue-pill out of? If there is no difference, why not go with what the evidence suggests - that there is indeed an external reality?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The mind creates light as we experience it.

This is very nearly something that I could agree with. If you mean 'the mind creates our experience of light,' I'm with you. The mind does in fact interpret the light coming in and creates for us all the colors and shades and brightness that we experience in the act of what we call seeing.

If, as I suspect, you mean the mind creates the light itself as well as the interpretation of that light, I'm afraid I'm going to ask what has led you to that conclusion?

 

[lifegazer]

Why is it just light that exhibits this phenomenon of constant velocity?

As opposed to what, for example?

 

[lifegazer]

"The mind creates light as we experience it."

This is very nearly something that I could agree with. If you mean 'the mind creates our experience of light,' I'm with you.

Yes, that's what I mean.

The mind does in fact interpret the light coming in and creates for us all the colors and shades and brightness that we experience in the act of what we call seeing.

Yes.

If, as I suspect, you mean the mind creates the light itself as well as the interpretation of that light, I'm afraid I'm going to ask what has led you to that conclusion?

"Light" is the experience of it (colour, brightness, etc.). And its source (the source of the experience of it) is the mind itself.

Most of us assume that the source of light is the objects depicted by that light (in our awareness). Yet the light (and hence those objects), as we experience it, is given to awareness by the mind.

So, for example, the source of light from the perceived Sun is not the Sun, but the mind itself!! And this light gives the appearance, within awareness, of a thing we call the Sun.

'We' are only aware of what the mind constructs within its own eye of awareness. And light as we experience it does emanate from the mind.
So the speed-of-light is a constant because the observer does not approach or recede from the source of light as he experiences it.

So, my philosophy makes sense of Einstein's relativity. It also makes sense of quantum indeterminancy, if you're interested.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
'We' are only aware of what the mind constructs within its own eye of awareness. And light as we experience it does emanate from the mind.
So the speed-of-light is a constant because the observer does not approach or recede from the source of light as he experiences it.

So, my philosophy makes sense of Einstein's relativity. It also makes sense of quantum indeterminancy, if you're interested.

S P R O I N G !

There goes a perfectly good Turingometer.

Say, Lifegazer, why is the speed of sound not constant?

~~ Paul

 

[lifegazer]

Besides, so what? If everything exists in my mind, but I don't have any way of differentiating between a world that only exists in my mind and a world that exists outside of my mind, what point is there to believe anything but what my senses tell me?

What's the difference between an external reality and a Matrix-like pseudo-reality that no one can blue-pill out of? If there is no difference, why not go with what the evidence suggests - that there is indeed an external reality?

The point of my philosophy is to show that God is existence. That there is nothing else but the unreal things which appear within God's mind.
That's the difference. And words can hardly express the profundity of this, nor the implications for mankind. I'm sure you can imagine.

 

[Upchurch]

Have you heard of the shapiro effect?
http://www.geocities.com/newastronomy/animate.htm

Maybe Upchurch has some more details?

Never heard of it before this, but I googled it. There are actually a couple of different Shapiro effects. The one lifegazer is referring to is an abscure situation where EM radiation pass close enough to the sun that it somehow causes an effect that is similar to red-shift. From what I can tell, however, is that the red-shift is minimal. It wouldn't account for the high degree of red-shifting of light we see coming from distant galaxies.

Regardless, as with Doppler shift, it is a physical phenomenon and not an abstract mental construct. lifegazer is on a fishing expidition.

 

[lifegazer]

Never heard of it before this, but I googled it. There are actually a couple of different Shapiro effects. The one lifegazer is referring to is an abscure situation where EM radiation pass close enough to the sun that it somehow causes an effect that is similar to red-shift. From what I can tell, however, is that the red-shift is minimal. It wouldn't account for the high degree of red-shifting of light we see coming from distant galaxies.

How many large bodies do you think light would come close to on its passage to us from distant galaxies?

Regardless, as with Doppler shift, it is a physical phenomenon and not an abstract mental construct. lifegazer is on a fishing expidition.

The laws of physics mirror the order of our perceptions as constructed by the mind. Therefore, the laws of physics are laws of the order present within the internal realm of the mind.

 

[Upchurch]

How many large bodies do you think light would come close to on its passage to us from distant galaxies?

I thought you didn't believe in large bodies, light, or distant galaxies. Now, you are depending on them to prove they don't exist?

 

[spejic]

The point of my philosophy is to show that God is existence. That there is nothing else but the unreal things which appear within God's mind.
That's the difference. And words can hardly express the profundity of this, nor the implications for mankind. I'm sure you can imagine.

Can you at least try? Throw us a bone here, dude.