Visual reality: a new insight.

[Mercutio]

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

Ooh! I know! I know!

None...because they are all in the mind....

in which case, of course, Shapiro's effect is moot. Why even bother bringing up one physical phenomenon to argue that another physical phenomenon might be in error? Even if you are right (which you most certainly are not), you have shown a physical effect, which is in opposition to your major thesis. Do you even take the time to see whether what you say is consistent with what you have previously said? I think PCA may be right--you are a Turing machine gone evil...

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.

So why bother to try to disprove them in the first place? Again, gazer, internal consistency is not your forte.

 

[lifegazer]

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?

The inner-experience of the universe, with its behavioural order, is real. Likewise, the inner-experience of distance is real.
But the inner-experience being real doesn't mean that either the universe itself, or distances, are real.
Physics is not destroyed by my philosophy. There is still perceived order whether that order applies to real or unreal things.

 

[Upchurch]

Physics is not destroyed by my philosophy. There is still perceived order whether that order applies to real or unreal things.

But if it only applies to illusionary unreal things and are applied by nothing other than the mind, those rules and illusionary unreal things should be manipulable by the mind, since that is their source. If your philosophy were true, we could control our perception of the physical world just as we can control our dreams.

The consistancy and immutability of physics does, in fact, put the lie to your philosophy.

 

[lifegazer]

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

Okay. You are God, having the inner experience of being spejic.
Now, should this information affect your attitude and your future actions? Should it affect ours also, since we are God also? Should it affect mankind as a whole? To what ends?
It's deep stuff. But there's a bone for ya.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Liegazer said:
Physics is not destroyed by my philosophy. There is still perceived order whether that order applies to real or unreal things.

But somehow the two metaphysics are not equivalent, right? What's an experiment we can run to verify yours?

~~ Paul

 

[spejic]

Okay. You are God, having the inner experience of being spejic.
Now, should this information affect your attitude and your future actions? Should it affect ours also, since we are God also? Should it affect mankind as a whole? To what ends?

No, it does nothing for me. The label "God" doesn't mean anything if there is no reality behind it. Being a god doesn't give me any power over what I perceive, or over other gods, does it? If not, then what good is it? Does it really make sense for a God to rent a room in a townhome, go to work for 8 hours a day, worry about not eating enough fiber, go poo once a day, and get so bored that he goes to the randi.org web site to argue with some guy that thinks he is a figment of God's imagination?

 

[lifegazer]

But if it only applies to illusionary unreal things and are applied by nothing other than the mind, those rules and illusionary unreal things should be manipulable by the mind, since that is their source.

They are. This universe is the mind's own construct, remember.
Everything we see has been manipulated to be like that, by the mind.

If your philosophy were true, we could control our perception of the physical world just as we can control our dreams.

But 'we' are lost within the dream. Who here truly knows himself as the Mind I speak of, so that no separate ego remains? We cannot control existence whilst we see ourselves as upchurch or lifegazer or whomever.
As I said, my philosophy is the beginning of the odyssey.

The consistancy and immutability of physics does, in fact, put the lie to your philosophy.

Physics relates to a realm constructed by the mind itself: to the experienced universe. Physics applies to a mind-reality. That's why the speed-of-light is a constant - the source of perceived light is the mind.

 

[Upchurch]

They are. This universe is the mind's own construct, remember.
Everything we see has been manipulated to be like that, by the mind.

Then why do you keep insisting on arguing from physical principles? You never get them right and, if your philosophy were correct, it could never lead to anything resembling proof for your philosophy unless you found an inconsistancy in physical law itself. (1) you're not well versed enough in physical law to be able to identify such an inconsistancy and (2) if you did, it would invalidate your philosophy which you claim is consistant with phyiscal law.

 

[RussDill]

The point of my philosophy is to show that God is existence.

Excactly, the point of your philosophy is not to discover the truth, or explain the world around us, but to try to prove that god is real.

That there is nothing else but the unreal things which appear within God's mind.
That's the difference.

Again, right on, the difference between other ideas and your own is that the only purpose of your ideas is to prove that there is a god and that we'd all be happy if we agreed with you.

And words can hardly express the profundity of this, nor the implications for mankind. I'm sure you can imagine.

You, lifegazer, put the "fun" back into profund.

 

[Acrimonious]

'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.

Tell me how your philosophy explains the simple concept of Refraction with a constant speed of light.

Or, why the mind (if only it exists and it is imagining the light) has figured out that the speed of light is constant only in a pure vacuum. How the mind came to the conclusion that 299,792,458 m/s was the best speed at which to "imagine" light's speed in a vacuum. And how this mind, having never experienced a true physical reality with atmospheres, refractive indices, and/or pure vacuums, would know that light travelled at different speeds in different physical media.

On one hand, the world exists, and I experience it.

On the other hand, the world doesn't exist, but I experience it anyway.

What does your "philosophy" gain anyone?

Absolutely nothing.

Deedle deedle queep.

 

[BillHoyt]

Given that light says nothing of depth or distance (from the brain/mind that sees it), the answer to your question is "yes".

But the brain (if it actually exists) infers/deduces the existence of distance between light (sources)(things) by those similar principals which enable us to watch the TV.

"Distance" is the mind's own construct. I mean, even if there were such a thing as "distance between objects", the mind/brain is not privy to this real information. What we measure is given to us by our mind - not by "reality". The distances we perceive are not given to us by light itself.

Distance is not a mental construct. It is a physical reality. If you think not, then I'd challenge you to take this test. Stand on the train tracks with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of five miles. Step away when you think you must. Now repeat with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of one-fifth of a mile. Step away when you think you must. Assuming you even stepped onto the tracks in the first place, why could you not stand on the tracks as long the second time?

BTW, if light gave you no information in this test, how did you know where the train was in the first place?

 

[lifegazer]

if your philosophy were correct, it could never lead to anything resembling proof for your philosophy unless you found an inconsistancy in physical law itself.

What?
My philosophy has tried, amongst other things, to relate certain aspects of physical-law (namely relativity and QM) to the conclusion that there is a (Mind of) God.
There's few gripes that I have about science, except:-
(1) When scientists state stupid and illogical things like "the universe sprang from nothing". Or "1-dimensional strings created everything we know". Or "This is a finite and boundless universe."
In other words, some scientists seem to be absolutely hopeless when it comes to making rational conclusions about existence.
(2) When scientists criminally assert unfounded conclusions about our existence, such as "consciousness has emerged from material processes". Or "there is an external reality". Or "material processes are the cause for all existence".
In other words, assumptions debase the purity of science.
(3) I state that light emanates directly from the mind and not the object that the light is depicting. But given that this discussion has shown that the light we experience is part of the mind's construct of reality, it should be pretty bloomin' obvious to anyone that light emanates from the mind and not the object that this light depicts.
Consequently, what I have to say about relativity should be taken seriously.

 

[lifegazer]

Excactly, the point of your philosophy is not to discover the truth, or explain the world around us, but to try to prove that god is real.

Proving that God is real equates to finding the truth and to explaining the world around you.

Again, right on, the difference between other ideas and your own is that the only purpose of your ideas is to prove that there is a god and that we'd all be happy if we agreed with you.

I don't think you care about the truth.

 

[lifegazer]

Tell me how your philosophy explains the simple concept of Refraction with a constant speed of light.

Or, why the mind (if only it exists and it is imagining the light) has figured out that the speed of light is constant only in a pure vacuum. How the mind came to the conclusion that 299,792,458 m/s was the best speed at which to "imagine" light's speed in a vacuum. And how this mind, having never experienced a true physical reality with atmospheres, refractive indices, and/or pure vacuums, would know that light travelled at different speeds in different physical media.

Silly questions.

On one hand, the world exists, and I experience it.

On the other hand, the world doesn't exist, but I experience it anyway.

What does your "philosophy" gain anyone?

Absolutely nothing.

It gains realisation of Godself. If you think this is insignificant, then it's already too late for you.

 

[lifegazer]

Distance is not a mental construct. It is a physical reality. If you think not, then I'd challenge you to take this test. Stand on the train tracks with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of five miles. Step away when you think you must. Now repeat with an oncoming speeding train at a "mental construct" of one-fifth of a mile. Step away when you think you must. Assuming you even stepped onto the tracks in the first place, why could you not stand on the tracks as long the second time?

BTW, if light gave you no information in this test, how did you know where the train was in the first place?

Sigh.

 

[lifegazer]

Ooh! I know! I know!

None...because they are all in the mind....

in which case, of course, Shapiro's effect is moot. Why even bother bringing up one physical phenomenon to argue that another physical phenomenon might be in error?

I was asked to give an alternative explanation for the redshift of distant galaxies. So I did.
The universe, real or just perceived, behaves with specific order... has specific laws.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This conversation is the definition of pointless.

~~ Paul

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Silly questions.

Translation = I have no idea what that means..

 

[lifegazer]

This conversation is the definition of pointless.

~~ Paul

Why is it pointless? Because you don't care whether there's a God or not? Why?

 

[lifegazer]

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

Light & sound both emanate directly from the mind. But sound mirrors, or proceeds, behaviour within and of the construct. It's a sensation which is constructed (by the mind) to be a consequence of events, just like pain for example. Whereas light precedes form and behaviour (of that form), giving rise to the perception of both.

Hence, things are not the origin of light in any sense, whereas they can be said to be the origin of sound in a particular sense.