Visual reality: a new insight.

[spejic]

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

Because by your own admission, knowing that there is a God does nothing for you. There is no macroscopic effect that you can point to that demonstrates your idea. What is the point?

lifegazer, it is very important that you believe that there is an insubstantial, invisible pixie on my shoulder named Harold. If you can only admit it, then you're eyes will open and you will see the path to .. well, something good. I can't describe it. Everything will take on a new significance, without actually changing in any way. Come on, man, pixies!! Oh, dear Harold, how can you be so blind!

 

[Upchurch]

invisible pixie on my shoulder named Harold.

That's funny. I know a fairy named Harald who sits next to me in the GLBT community band....

ba-da-bump.

 

[lifegazer]

Because by your own admission, knowing that there is a God does nothing for you. There is no macroscopic effect that you can point to that demonstrates your idea. What is the point?

lifegazer, it is very important that you believe that there is an insubstantial, invisible pixie on my shoulder named Harold. If you can only admit it, then you're eyes will open and you will see the path to .. well, something good. I can't describe it. Everything will take on a new significance, without actually changing in any way. Come on, man, pixies!! Oh, dear Harold, how can you be so blind!

Your first reaction to the possibility that you are God is "What's in it for me?". What's in it for 'you', is a gradual death (transformation really) of your ego, if you were to take this realisation seriously, and a spiritual odyssey towards knowing yourself and your fellow man as that God. But hey, there's no reward in that for 'you', is there?
So screw it. Screw everything... get what you can while you can and screw everybody else in the process. Screw God.

 

[Mercutio]

I was asked to give an alternative explanation for the redshift of distant galaxies. So I did.

Um, no, actually. I realize that you don't understand the explanation you linked to, but the fact is that it has very different properties from the doppler shift of receding galaxies. So, no, you did not give an alternative explanation. You gave a link with some big words that you thought might impress people.

The universe, real or just perceived, behaves with specific order... has specific laws.

Why? I know why the real world should behave in manners which we describe by laws, but I can see no reason--and you have certainly offered none--why a perceived universe should behave similarly. You have even likened it to dreaming--my dreams often feature apparent violations of physical laws...so please explain why it is that a perceived-only universe should follow laws.

 

[Acrimonious]

Your first reaction to the possibility that you are God is "What's in it for me?". What's in it for 'you', is a gradual death (transformation really) of your ego, if you were to take this realisation seriously, and a spiritual odyssey towards knowing yourself and your fellow man as that God

No, my first reaction to the possibility that I am God is best described by invoking the the state motto of Missouri. Show me.

No, I don't mean "blather incoherently, ignoring hundreds of years of research and knowledge." I mean: "Show me." Show me one, single, individual person who has gone through your "Spiritual Odyssey" and come out the other end changed in any slightly measurable way.

Your hackneyed philosophy consists of nothing more than cheap talk and conjecture. You're like a twisted, wanna-be Peter Pan.

-------------------------------------
Lifegazer: Here's how the world works; if you think happy thoughts, you can fly.

Everyone: Anyone can fly?

Lifegazer: Yes.

Everyone: Can you fly?

Lifegazer: I could, if I went on a Spiritual Odyssey.

Everyone: So you can't fly?

Lifegazer: Not yet. I haven't started my Spiritual Odyssey yet.

Everyone: So how do you know happy thoughts will allow flight?

Lifegazer: I thought a little about it. You see, moments of pure joy are known as "elation." "Elate" comes from the same Latin root as "Elevate." So, purely from inferring from the language The Mind (TM, all rights reserved) has constructed for itself to communicate with itself, it is obvious that happiness allows flight. I have discounted the past 100,000 years of flightless human evolution and the past 2000 years of scientific study of aeronautics because it does not agree with my analysis and is therefore wrong.

Everyone: That's all fine and dandy. But still... people cannot fly simply by having happy thoughts.

Lifegazer: I believe that no person has fully embraced this philosophy yet, and so we are all unable to reach the levels of joy necessary to obtain flight. I'm only a messenger to help you start the Odyssey. Also: If you really don't want to grow up, you can stay young forever.

Everyone: Call us when there's proof.
--------------------------

There are still two options.
1) Everything is real, we experience reality with our senses, and we're just plain human beings.
2) Nothing is real, we experience an elaborately concocted illusion that is indistinguishable from reality, and we're all God fooled into thinking we're plain human beings, causing us to be unable to access the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.

Net total difference: Zero.

 

[Beleth]

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.

That's not a difference. That's a statement.

Let me rephrase what Acrimonius said just above this in the form of a question:
What is an observable difference between a universe that actually has solid, 3-D objects, and a universe that exists solely of "unreal" things in God' mind? What test could we perform that would enable us to distinguish between the two possible realities?

If there is no such test, then what do we gain by doubting our own existence and experiences?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
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.

Can you spell a-d h-o-c ?

~~ Paul

 

[billydkid]

Duh.

It's like I said: There's a host of incoming photons going into the eyes (presumably). None of these photons are telling the eye/brain how far they have come.
So please explain to this forum how the brain constructs a 4-dimensional abstract of reality, with the awareness of the distance traversed by those photons built into that construct.

God, you are an idiot.

 

[scribble]

Re: Duh.

God, you are an idiot.

Lifegazer is one, too.

I've just had to study optics for the programming I'm doing. It's a fascinating field.

 

[RussDill]

(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.

It is only stupid and irrational to you because you don't bother to dig deeper and understand the theories. Interestingly enough, scientists say something you like, and before even understanding what they said, you pounce on it as proof.

Scientist: We have been working on a theory, <something that disagrees with lifegazer's philosophy>

LG: You guys make me sick, you are all so stupid

Scientist: We think that possibly <Something that might agree with Lif..

[LG cuts them off] LG: hahaha! absolute proof of my philosophy, behold, your god.

(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.

Everything in science is a theory. You are the only one here with assertions and assumptions.

(3) I state that light emanates directly from the mind and not the object that the light is depicting.

stare at the sun for 5 minutes, see what that does for you.

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.

Actually, the point is, you don't know the source of your stimuli, nor can you ever know for sure.

Consequently, what I have to say about relativity should be taken seriously.

I'll take it seriously as soon as you show an understanding for relativity.

 

[RussDill]

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

Setting out to prove that something does not equate to any additional understanding or proof if you are already sure of it in the first place.

I don't think you care about the truth.

? You are not even willing to question your own ideas. You believe what you do because it excites you, and you'd rather not question it.

 

[RussDill]

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.

I'm sorry, your explaination does not adequetely explain it. Two objects can have nothing between them and us, but be different distances, and their redshift will be different. Also, we can observe redshift locally, with all the variable accounted for.

 

[RussDill]

Light & sound both emanate directly from the mind.

The experience or abstraction eminates form the mind. That says nothing for the source of the stimuli.

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.

So in other words, you have assumed out stimuli to be the result of an illusion created by a vastly superior intelligence.

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.

Again, you have assumed parts of the mind external to our own awareness to be the source of our stimuli.