thehacker Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 or, uh...some shit like that :laugh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tribal Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 i think organized religion is a tool to harvest the ignorant masses, while our physicists establish the law of divinity. religioin is nothing more than a social tool. i find the whole concept of Catholic church ludicrous (no offense), why does one need all that Papal buaracracy to connect with a spiritual entity??hacker - good points, the concept of true infinity is mindboggling, read that book ive mentioned before, very interesting. there are actually more than 1 sets of infinities, and each infinity can have a subset of infinities. anyways, all of this makes much more sense with a nice big blunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatang Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Originally posted by tribal i think organized religion is a tool to harvest the ignorant masses, while our physicists establish the law of divinity. religioin is nothing more than a social tool. i find the whole concept of Catholic church ludicrous (no offense), why does one need all that Papal buaracracy to connect with a spiritual entity??as if k. marx himself is speaking through you LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Originally posted by thehacker or, uh...some shit like that :laugh: EXACTLY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender84 Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 haha.... The Hitchhickers Guide To The Galaxyironic book, basically pointing out how important, and at the same time uselsess these questions really are. Flying is easy. All you have to do is throw yourself at the ground and miss.yeah.. its late.. and Im high... btw. How many people are religious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malone Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 and then they look at me funny. they'll rap their knuckles on a nearby piece of furniture and say "you're telling me this doesn't exist? that's absurd!" Indeed. How would you know they rapped their knuckles on a peace of furniture, unless you saw it or heard it? In other words, aren't you relying on those sences to convey that unmistakable meaning to you? And aren't we, in turn, relying on our sences to understand your meaning, from our own past experiences, fed through our sences, to comprehend that which you want us to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 yep.but to take that one step further...perhaps...there is no such thing as "sense"it's merely a cognitive function of perception.i mean like, there is no air - air is simply perceived.there is no air pressure - it is simply perceived.there are no pulses of air vibration (sound) - it is simply perceived.think in similar terms for vision.no photons - just perceived.no visible radiation - just perceived.no oscillation of that radiation at a given wavelength (vision)...that is to say... there is no such thing as a particle.no such thing as an atom. no such thing as a leptonor quark or any number of physical manifestationsof PERCEPTION that scientists have toiled andtheorized about to try to explain the worldaround them.it's difficult to imagine.it is downright preposterous.but to me, it makes infinity that much more a real possibility.if there is truly NOTHING, then it's quite simplefor A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING to "exist." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 Originally posted by tribal good points, the concept of true infinity is mindboggling, read that book ive mentioned before, very interesting. there are actually more than 1 sets of infinities, and each infinity can have a subset of infinities. anyways, all of this makes much more sense with a nice big blunt. that book:(for the benefit of the rest of the "class")The Prophet i think about this stuff stone cold sober.scaaaary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malone Posted March 21 Report Share Posted March 21 there is no such thing as "sense" it's merely a cognitive function of perception. i mean like, there is no air - air is simply perceived. there is no air pressure - it is simply perceived. there are no pulses of air vibration (sound) - it is simply perceived. think in similar terms for vision. no photons - just perceived. no visible radiation - just perceived. no oscillation of that radiation at a given wavelength (vision)... But to "perceive" something is to become aware of it. This we do through our senses. When you posted your last response, you didn't just "Percieve" that you touched the keyboards to furnish us your thoughts, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to you. Or, are you suggestion that this is merely a figment of your imagination? Why did you respond to any of the other posts? Did I just imagine it? Or did you just imagine that I, a figment of your own imagination, made an imaginary response. It felt quite real to me.This I know because I trust my sensory perception. Maybe they don't exist? You trusted your senses to accurately convey to you this reality. Are you merely assuming that your senses are accurate for the purposes of this discussion , and will lose this feature thereafter? You assume as true the very things you then suggest may not be: sound, vision, etc. Any attempt to prove your point requires that you communicate to us, which you can only do if you trust our senses, as well as your own. We must all trust our senses ability to convey accurately the nature of our surroundings, otherwise language itself would have no meaning. You talk of "vision", yet this requires that I must have an understanding of the concept, and it must be the same as yours. Like in the example I cited yesterday about your friends touching the chair and professing wonderment that you were suggesting that it may not actually be real. Well, you didnt say that "I perceived that they touched what I perceived to be a chair", now did you?? You trusted your senses then, and you trust them now. And if you respond to this post, you will have trusted them again. No offence, but your argument is rendered completely unintelligible, as is mine, of course, if we do not grant recognition to the accuracy of our sensory faculties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 you didn't everything i said into account...infinite possibilities, all occuring at once.in infinite parallel universesyou, or what both i and you and othersreading this thread perceive to be 'you',responded to my posts in every wayimaginable, or actually, in more waysthan can even be comprehended...what you and i both perceive to beyour 'response' is one of our sharedperception of the one reality weare aware of, among infinite realities.others who have not yet read this threadare not aware of the reality that has spawnedour awareness of mine and yours and others' responses...they are existing on a different plane; unless of coursethey click on the thread topic and start reading,then this one reality becomes shared.if a tree falls in the woodsand no one is there to hear it...does it make a sound? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Originally posted by thehacker you didn't everything i said into account...infinite possibilities, all occuring at once.in infinite parallel universesyou, or what both i and you and othersreading this thread perceive to be 'you',responded to my posts in every wayimaginable, or actually, in more waysthan can even be comprehended...what you and i both perceive to beyour 'response' is one of our sharedperception of the one reality weare aware of, among infinite realities.others who have not yet read this threadare not aware of the reality that has spawnedour awareness of mine and yours and others' responses...they are existing on a different plane; unless of coursethey click on the thread topic and start reading,then this one reality becomes shared.if a tree falls in the woodsand no one is there to hear it...does it make a sound? I think this is what I generally refer to as the human centered point of view. I know at least one other board member who subscribes to this.And I strongly disagree with it...because I think it's incredibly human oriented...also, it subscribes to the notion that if there is no humans to perceive something, then nothing exists. And in so many words, in order to answer that question: yes, the tree DOES make a sound. Because human perception isn't necessary for something else to exist... imho... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatang Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Originally posted by phuturephunk . . . I don't believe a force is acting on anything . . . It's more . . . err . . . . . . . . . There was a Nissan commercial (I think) that started out with a closeup shot of a butterfly . . . A narrator came in with "A butterfly flaps it's wings in a South American Jungle, which causes a small breeze of air to startle a cow, which causes a stampede . . . " . . and so on . . . make a long story short . . . The narrator traces a chain of events all the way up to the thunderstorm that is now vexing the beautiful wax job on that new Sentra . . . . . anyways . . . The point is that . . a small event causes another small event, which in turn could cause several more . . and so on . . These events exponentially increase until entire masses of the human race are killing each other over a strip of land in central europe and a cheese steak . . . . (don't ask me . . . It sounded right at the time . . . . . ) . . . . . . Now what does this have to do with so called "fate" that we, in theory, abide by, or the "luck" that is inflicted on us? . . . . Honestly I don't know, but I will make an honest stoner observation . . . . . . Taking the above as plausible theory, one could speculate that the the universe's origin of existence is in fact driven by the consciousness of it's inhabitants . . . as if to say there would be no universe if there was no consciousness . . . Humans, in particular are able to control their own destinies . . . therefore, taking the theory into account, we control existence through our actions on a large scale . . . One human being walking a trail is one thing . . . Several Hundred riding in a train is another . . . And it's not just "us" that causes the reaction . . it's our inventions as well . . . . . . We're the only species that can create on a monumental scale . . . No other biological force on this earth can claim the same . . . Our bridges and skyscrapers and busses and Ships and all that is large in human ingenuity . . . Our only legacy as a species, for we don't fit into the rational system that is nature in any logical sense . . . are our inventions . . . The creations that serve monumental needs of our species . . . Even the everyday stuff, like cars and cigarette lighters still come into play in shaping our existence . . . We create, and the universe is created in response . . . . . . What about in the vastness of space? . . . except for the planets that are blessed to support life, there is no consciousness there . . . How do we disprove the notion that the universe is all just random chance? . . . The theory would exclude deep space since no consciousness spends time observing all of it . . . therefore it wouldn't exist . . . . . . . you would think . . . realize though . . that people are going to be checking luggage in the morning . . . . . . . . .... . . . ... .. . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . errr . . . . ....... . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . .. . . Fuck!! . . . . I lost it . . . . I had the answer to existence . . . I saw it . . I really fucking did! . . . . and it just left me like so many bad nights . . . . . . .arrgghh. . . this was great..where do you get that weed? ugh, i forgot, i only do c and e... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 i never said anything about human centeredor if i did it wasn't emphasized in the least.maybe a turtle's reading this thread.we'll never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreese Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 But what is so bad about being humanistic? I am a humanist, at least partially so, and do NOT see anything wrong with it. (besides the usual glitches all philosophies have) hu·man·ism Date: 1832a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially : a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reasonI my case, I do believe in a supernatural being that maybe does exist, or once existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 'human' is all perception.what we perceive as 'human' might be perceived assomething else or some other creature entirelyby another entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 i'll stop adding my two cents about"it's all perception" starting NOW...i realize you all get the point.(maybe not my reasoning or myargument/proposition altogether,but i know i'm beating a dead horse.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreese Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Originally posted by thehacker 'human' is all perception.what we perceive as 'human' might be perceived assomething else or some other creature entirelyby another entity. So then one could argue that some "perceive" that there is a higher being, while it might just be plain "luck". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Originally posted by thehacker i never said anything about human centeredor if i did it wasn't emphasized in the least.maybe a turtle's reading this thread.we'll never know. But I was refering to your "whole lotta nothing" bit...Do clear up your distinction between sense vs. perception, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexxyh Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 ~~~ u cant believe in both (imo only ) i bleieve in God........but i beleived that he sets up your destiny so luck is just part of ur fate.....so when u find 50 bucks on the street it was destined to happen..........just what i believe in u dont have to agree with me:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malone Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it... does it make a sound? Well that depends. Do you mean that no organism capable of interpreting "sound waves", acting on the organs of hearing, is present? If so, then I would think it wouldn't make a sound, as sound requires the hearing mechanism to be stimulated. It is these organs that then interpret that stimulation as sound. Sound does not exist independently. If there's no one to hear it, it couldn't exist. If you were in the woods, and the tree didn't fall, would you expect to hear it fall? No, the vibrations of the air would not be present. Consequently, the absence of the sensory perception portion of the equation in the example above militates against the possibility of sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 and yet some would say it does...mainly, physicists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xpander Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Originally posted by malone Well that depends. Do you mean that no organism capable of interpreting "sound waves", acting on the organs of hearing, is present? If so, then I would think it wouldn't make a sound, as sound requires the hearing mechanism to be stimulated. It is these organs that then interpret that stimulation as sound. Sound does not exist independently. If there's no one to hear it, it couldn't exist. If you were in the woods, and the tree didn't fall, would you expect to hear it fall? No, the vibrations of the air would not be present. Consequently, the absence of the sensory perception portion of the equation in the example above militates against the possibility of sound. Not so.Sound waves are not what your brain interprets when it receives a signal. Rather, it is the actual waves that stimulate your (would be) brain by way of your ears.By your example, the said person would be very well deaf, but the stimulations that would trigger the sound interpretation would still be present. sound1 Pronunciation Key (sound)n. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium. Such sensations considered as a group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malone Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 [ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malone Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 Not so. Sound waves are not what your brain interprets when it receives a signal. Rather, it is the actual waves that stimulate your (would be) brain by way of your ears. By your example, the said person would be very well deaf, but the stimulations that would trigger the sound interpretation would still be present. Okay, I accept that criticism, as I neglected to say that it was the brain that interprets the stimulation on the hearing organ, as sound. However, this oversight does not invalidate the actual point being made, which was that for sound to occur a "listener"had to be present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehacker Posted March 22 Report Share Posted March 22 ... which i was actually unobtrusively using asa means of bringing about a counterpointto what i was saying earlier ...you seemed to say, in response to the zen concept,that there is no sound without a listener ...as i see it, you have, though it may not havebeen your original intent, agreed with my notionthat nothing truly exists, and that everythingis perceived by the observer ... without alistener, no sound; without a viewer,no vision; and so forth ... so, no observer,no perception at all ... thus by thoseconstraints, nothing exists - somethingIs because it seems to us that it Is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.