I'm going to be disappearing soon because 4:30 a.m. is telling me I must go to bed
Full Version: My world view
maybe...
I'm going to be disappearing soon because 4:30 a.m. is telling me I must go to bed
I'm going to be disappearing soon because 4:30 a.m. is telling me I must go to bed
np, i've enjoyed this thread
Goodnight
Goodnight
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Apr 07, 02:16 AM) |
| The future will happen in reality, even though it does not exist now. |
I do not think this is correct. All (past, present and future) exist at the SAME time. How can one see something that hasn't occured like clairvoyents? The Prophets were able to see the future... how can they see something that doesn't exist???
Have you ever seen the back of a needlepoint? It looks chaotic... but flip it around and its a nicely ordered picture.... which stitch occurred first? Aren't they all existing at the same time? God Already knows the outcome because it already exists.... it just looks chaotic... but, there is a neatly ordered plan occuring.
Hi AriAnnis,
First of all, I recognise that we have major differences in our 'views of some aspects of reality'. Call them beliefs, thoughts, Truths or whatever we like.
I seek only the Truth of real 'things', and have no desire to change anybody elses beliefs. I definitely know that I may be totally wrong with my own concepts, but nonetheless your accepted concepts cut across mine and vice versa. I express these facts because I have no desire to 'beat' you, just to find what to me appears to be the truth. We may both change our opinions, one of us may change, or neither may change [obviously]. I don't see anyone winning or losing, just people possibly seeing a new light, whoever it may be.
That said, I enter into mutual discussion....
You believe clairvoyants 'see' the future. I don't, but there are some things I do not yet understand in any way [not discussing here].
Do you notice that nobody ever 'sees' the past?
Do you mean to say that you believe tomorrows [in fact, all future] events have already occurred and most of us just can't see their effects. Ah!, I've just realised you do, because you say "how can clairvoyant see something which hasn't happened yet? Therefore, you acept that it hasn't happened yet ie., it is in the future for non-clairvoyants but not for clairvoyants. So, I say, it is more logical [not necessarily correct] to presume that clairvoyants do not see into the future.
It just seems so illogical to me! If all future events have already occurred, that means there is no future and everything is in the past!
And yet, even though there is no future, things will happen tomorrow [the future] which didn't happen today [so there is a future]!
This is just impossible for me to entertain any further.
I move on to cross-stitching. I love these works - my wife Chris has done about 30 in all sizes.
The back is 'untidy'! I spend hours fitting 'ends' under stitches so they don't show through when the work is mounted.
Ok so the front's neat, the back's taddy [mainly because we do not see it so it does not matter].
Which stitch came first you ask. That is impossible to answer, but I guarantee that at some point in time on a date I can state per work, my wife had exactly one stitch in place and it was the first stitch in that work. I could take a photograph on her next work to prove the point. None of the stitches which had not been placed would show, because they had not yet been placed. In other words there is a squence in which stitches are added and it takes what we call 'time' for them to be added. They only all exist at the same time once all the stitches have been added! And even then there is still no frame around the thing, and the guy who stretches the work has no idea that we are going to give him a job in 3 days time.
Or do you think it is already framed and that we only 'think' we are rolling it up in two days time after we 'think' we have washed it tomorrow?
This is just too far fetched for me, I'm afraid.
You bring God into the discussion - I suspect I may be taking your words too literally. I suspect you may be meaning 'the future is pre-ordained' when you say the future exists. In that case we have a whole new topic, and possibly agree that the future does not already exist!
I don't believe that the future is PO either, but this post is big enough already.
Can you illuminate me any further? Am I misunderstanding your words?
First of all, I recognise that we have major differences in our 'views of some aspects of reality'. Call them beliefs, thoughts, Truths or whatever we like.
I seek only the Truth of real 'things', and have no desire to change anybody elses beliefs. I definitely know that I may be totally wrong with my own concepts, but nonetheless your accepted concepts cut across mine and vice versa. I express these facts because I have no desire to 'beat' you, just to find what to me appears to be the truth. We may both change our opinions, one of us may change, or neither may change [obviously]. I don't see anyone winning or losing, just people possibly seeing a new light, whoever it may be.
That said, I enter into mutual discussion....
You believe clairvoyants 'see' the future. I don't, but there are some things I do not yet understand in any way [not discussing here].
Do you notice that nobody ever 'sees' the past?
Do you mean to say that you believe tomorrows [in fact, all future] events have already occurred and most of us just can't see their effects. Ah!, I've just realised you do, because you say "how can clairvoyant see something which hasn't happened yet? Therefore, you acept that it hasn't happened yet ie., it is in the future for non-clairvoyants but not for clairvoyants. So, I say, it is more logical [not necessarily correct] to presume that clairvoyants do not see into the future.
It just seems so illogical to me! If all future events have already occurred, that means there is no future and everything is in the past!
And yet, even though there is no future, things will happen tomorrow [the future] which didn't happen today [so there is a future]!
This is just impossible for me to entertain any further.
I move on to cross-stitching. I love these works - my wife Chris has done about 30 in all sizes.
The back is 'untidy'! I spend hours fitting 'ends' under stitches so they don't show through when the work is mounted.
Ok so the front's neat, the back's taddy [mainly because we do not see it so it does not matter].
Which stitch came first you ask. That is impossible to answer, but I guarantee that at some point in time on a date I can state per work, my wife had exactly one stitch in place and it was the first stitch in that work. I could take a photograph on her next work to prove the point. None of the stitches which had not been placed would show, because they had not yet been placed. In other words there is a squence in which stitches are added and it takes what we call 'time' for them to be added. They only all exist at the same time once all the stitches have been added! And even then there is still no frame around the thing, and the guy who stretches the work has no idea that we are going to give him a job in 3 days time.
Or do you think it is already framed and that we only 'think' we are rolling it up in two days time after we 'think' we have washed it tomorrow?
This is just too far fetched for me, I'm afraid.
You bring God into the discussion - I suspect I may be taking your words too literally. I suspect you may be meaning 'the future is pre-ordained' when you say the future exists. In that case we have a whole new topic, and possibly agree that the future does not already exist!
I don't believe that the future is PO either, but this post is big enough already.
Can you illuminate me any further? Am I misunderstanding your words?
Hi Dianah,
I can agree with your concept; it is almost as if NOW is CONSCIOUSNESS.
NOW need have no length I suppose, and the concept of a window of near-zero width traversing the time-line of the sequence of events occurring in the universe is just how I model it.
I can agree with your concept; it is almost as if NOW is CONSCIOUSNESS.
NOW need have no length I suppose, and the concept of a window of near-zero width traversing the time-line of the sequence of events occurring in the universe is just how I model it.
| QUOTE |
| It would just BE…and it is this very BEINGNESS that we strive to understand through the very experience of BEING that, which is perceived, and all that can be perceived is within the instant of the now…for that is all there IS. |
so what do you say about BECOMING, or is that just BEING to you?
| QUOTE |
| We perceive a past or a future but we can only perceive it within the instant of now |
That's not true since it seems obvious that I perceive a past in the past even if I don't have access to it in the present.
Sorry guest, Ive searched but cannot find where you obtained these quotes, so can't comment in the absence of their source.
| QUOTE (Dan) |
| my thinking is with purpose, designed intentionally. I build the box, and I can destroy the box. What box are you in? |
some boxes are very subtle. We don't even know we're in them.
| QUOTE (Dan) |
| I am involved in a conversation with this apparently overconfident character named Dan who I assume as existing simultaneously with myself |
is there really such a thing as overconfidence?| QUOTE (Dan) |
| I'm pretty much experiencing all available consciousnesses serially in a rapid cyclic fashion, |
so as the number of available consciousnesses increases (as world population increases), the duration of our conscious cycles will increase too? Is this increase unbounded? Why is this rapid cycling necessary?
| QUOTE (rhymer) |
| Sorry guest, Ive searched but cannot find where you obtained these quotes, so can't comment in the absence of their source. |
from Dianahs post above
| QUOTE (Dianah) |
Becoming is a perception of time/space and the perceiving of duration. |
So Becoming is a part of Perception which is related how to Being?
| QUOTE (Dianah) |
| I perceive and understand your statement as an aspect of perceiving time/space/ duration, therefore relative…and true within its definition of your perception. |
I have no idea what this statement means. It seems nonsensical and quasi-comical. If we substitute for the pronoun in the last part, we get you saying "...and true within your statements definition of your perception." How does my statement define my perception?? My statement may be used to make inferences about my perception which may or may not be correct but it certainly doesn't define it.
Maybe you can explain this more
| QUOTE (Dianah) |
| There simply is infinite ways to perceive our existence…and none are wrong nor right…it just is what it IS. |
so you're saying that existence is separate from perception? And there are really an infinite number of ways to perceive our existence or did you mean that you personally can't count the number of ways to perceive our existence and so you choose to label it "infinite"? Would you say that the number of grains of sand on a beach are "infinite" too because you can't count their number?
| QUOTE (Dianah) |
| I don't play word chess... |
nuff said. No more chess. I will be much less critical. It's nothing personal. It's just that being critical seems necessary at times, else we can fall into the trap of believing anything.
To the guest whose quotes I couldn't find - thanks and sorry for showing up my failing eyesight!
Dianah,
For me, the past has already happened, therefore, all I can do is recall memories of it [as I percieve them now] or watch media items which supposedly recorded things that happened in the past.
Whilst these events or things occurred in the past, it is possible to view again that information which was recorded at or about the time of those events. We are then recalling information rather than seeing the past again.
Dianah,
For me, the past has already happened, therefore, all I can do is recall memories of it [as I percieve them now] or watch media items which supposedly recorded things that happened in the past.
Whilst these events or things occurred in the past, it is possible to view again that information which was recorded at or about the time of those events. We are then recalling information rather than seeing the past again.
| QUOTE |
| some boxes are very subtle. We don't even know we're in them. |
sort of like the box you are in that causes you to believe that I am in a box that I don't know I'm in?
| QUOTE |
| so as the number of available consciousnesses increases (as world population increases), the duration of our conscious cycles will increase too? Is this increase unbounded? Why is this rapid cycling necessary? |
the upper limit to the number of available consciuosnesses in the universe corresponds to the number of particles in the universe. Each particle is oscillating in and out of existence, likely with the period on the order of Planck time. The influence of a particular particle on the conscious experience is a non-linear function of it's phase position, thus a particle contributes to conscious experience during only a tiny phase window.
| QUOTE (Dan) |
| sort of like the box you are in that causes you to believe that I am in a box that I don't know I'm in? |
Dan, I'm flabbergasted! I would never imply that you were in a box.
| QUOTE (Dan) |
the upper limit to the number of available consciuosnesses in the universe corresponds to the number of particles in the universe. |
Do you include virtual particles? because if so, then you'd have uncountedly many infinite particles, which would mean, given finite consciousnesses, that the cycle length for your oscillating consciousness would go to zero (or maybe Planck time). So what does that say about oscillating consciousnesses if the time period of oscillation goes to zero? That they're not oscillating?
| QUOTE (Guest @ Apr 07, 09:37 PM) | ||
so you're saying that existence is separate from perception? And there are really an infinite number of ways to perceive our existence or did you mean that you personally can't count the number of ways to perceive our existence and so you choose to label it "infinite"? Would you say that the number of grains of sand on a beach are "infinite" too because you can't count their number? |
I suspect misinterpretations [or different ways of expression] are responsible for this apparent confusion. I am repeatedly reminded that whilst we may speak the same language we do not use that language , each the same way - myself included. We then are offended in some way or another only because we almost have to assume bad intentions on behalf of the other party!
I think the only better way of proceeding is to ask for clarification, and if that doesn't work just pretend the post is written in another language. This at least gives an opportunity to proceed when no ill-intentions are meant!
On this point of perceiving and existence, my approach is to think they are different aspects of life.
I can exist without being able to perceive [won't go far admittedly].
I can only carry out perception if I exist.
Therefore, existence is a prerequisite for perception.
Regards, Bill.
PS Keep talking; that's what we're here for, and it's worth it.
EDIT....... Dianah, your post of 10:00 PM was not visible to me as I wrote this post!
| QUOTE (Guest @ Apr 07, 03:02 PM) |
| Do you include virtual particles? because if so, then you'd have uncountedly many infinite particles, which would mean, given finite consciousnesses, that the cycle length for your oscillating consciousness would go to zero (or maybe Planck time). |
I include what is real now. Your reductio ad absurdum is simply invalid
| QUOTE (Dan) |
| I include what is real now. Your reductio ad absurdum is simply invalid |
I'm not aiming for reductio ad absurdum. I'm just following the strands of logic and implications of your oscillation idea. Quantum Field Theory is different from Quantum Mechanics in that virtual particles may be created and destoyed. In fact, the calculations for single particle trajectories require summing over infinitely many virtual particles which are created and destroyed. Of course, the series summation is truncated during the calculation to make the calculation feasable, but the point is still that, according to QFT, there are infinitely many particles in existence. On a different note, what qualifies as a particle? Is an electron a particle, or are quarks particles, or is something more fundamental a particle? And what about forces like gravitation and electromagnetism? Are photons particles? Quantum mechanics would say yes. What about gravitons, or leptons? What is the criteria for being a particle? Is it spatial locality? What about the possibility of particles that are non-local or distributed over different regions of space. Are electrons individual particles even though they're all identical to each other and can be treated as a single particle?
that's all very nice. What I'm talking about does not involve mathematical fantasies of infinities, but rather simply 'what is really out there'. what qualify as particles are simply all fundamental, internally structureless 'units' that, due to relations with other such 'units', constitute what we call physical structure
Dan: "what qualify as particles are simply all fundamental, internally structureless 'units' "
Who says particles as you define them exist? You're making metaphysical claims that have no basis in experience, which means you have no way of offering anything in the way of proof for your structureless fundamental "Particles", which means that your "Particles" are more fantasy and more of a comforting illusion than the mathematical concept of infinity which at least has a firm basis in physical descriptions of reality and experience. Do you concur?
What I experience are relations. I have never experienced anything that's internally structureless, nor has anyone ever presented me with a compelling reason to believe that internally structureless things even exist. The relation is fundamental, and relations give rise to structure, and structure gives rise to content and the world as we experience it. What is the relation between, you ask, if not between structureless particles? Presumably these structureless particles of yours would be unobservable, and if they're unobservable (directly or indirectly), then there is absolutely no way to show that they exist, nor any good reason to believe in them, except through the rather despicable method of blind faith, which is not a good reason at all.
| QUOTE (asdf @ Apr 07, 07:39 PM) |
| I have never experienced anything that's internally structureless, nor has anyone ever presented me with a compelling reason to believe that internally structureless things even exist. |
perhaps you have not heard of the 'electron'?
anyway, I can see you are quite satisfied with your own ideas and I certainly am not particularly interested in interfering
Guys, don't forget you're in a philosophy board. Beating people about the head with "science" is not acceptable behaviour.
If you want to do that; go find a physics board where you can have a proper word chess tournament
If you want to do that; go find a physics board where you can have a proper word chess tournament
we don't know if guest/asdf is a guy 
Guys and Gals then, or maybe Buoys and Gulls (as i saw in a seafood restaurant recently)
I've never considered that term sexist before!
I've never considered that term sexist before!
I would prefer 'asswipes', as it seems appropriate and gender-neutral
riiiiiiiiiight! 
btw, Laz.... you are at the moment about 88 posts behind me to take over position 10 on the all-time poster list. I don't know what I'll do if this happens
become position 9?
actually, position 11 which is loserville as far as I'm concerned
well lets keep talking crap and we'll be at position 5 & 6 before you know it, 5 through 10 look pretty bunched up
btw, do you remember this guy? He actually went to Mexico in order to learn the toltec tradition, and had a lot of interesting (and perhaps strange) things to say about it that you can find in his postings.
I don't think i've ever come across him, but thanks, i'll go search for his posts
Read a good few of Eriqs posts, very interesting and good to see someone speak of Carlos Castenedas philosophy in such blatent terms; like he's been to the places Carlos talks about.
I would like to meet his Manfred character, shame Eriq doesn't frequent the board any more, i'd enjoy talking with him.
I would like to meet his Manfred character, shame Eriq doesn't frequent the board any more, i'd enjoy talking with him.
| QUOTE (rhymer @ Apr 07, 08:02 AM) |
Hi Rymer:
Sorry that my views cut across yours... but I like a good debate so I can disprove or prove my own views... we would stagnate if we only had our own thoughts to listen to. I believe I have no right to think a certain way unless I can defend it. And I believe I can defend it. But, you might prove me wrong and I welcome that. Cause if I WAS wrong then I would want to know.
You believe clairvoyants 'see' the future. I don't, but there are some things I do not yet understand in any way [not discussing here].
Do you notice that nobody ever 'sees' the past?
Your first statement above is incorrect... Buddah saw the past and all his lives leading up to the present one he had. How then DO YOU EXPLAIN clairvoyents seeing the future???? Because it already exists... Time is like a corridor... if you had the keys to it you could walk down it and open 1963... or 2014 or any year you wished and move on to the month and the day. And I state that clairvoyents... prophets and other enlightened people see the 'HALL OF TIME'...
Do you mean to say that you believe tomorrows [in fact, all future] events have already occurred and most of us just can't see their effects.
Only GOD can see the whole picture... and yes it is preordained to some degree... the enlightened can change the outcome of that picture... but because too many still refuse to let go the EGO and allow us to CHANGE a stitch... the picture will never turn out differently....
everything is in the past!
Yes the stitches have a sequence.... but only from your EARTHLY point of view... not GODS point of view it's all the PAST.
Does that help your understanding of my belief?
What point are you making here Dianah? Your logic is a little hard to follow, can you restate the existence/preception/consciousness/awareness argument please
I believe the point that she (Dianah) is trying to make is that without perceiving our own conciousness we would be no better that computers not aware of our existence but still existing..
Computers exist... BUT are they AWARE they exist???
I believe the answer is "NO". Yet they are smart... smarter than some humans...lol.... but only concioussness can be aware of itself and percieve experiences ... a computer cannot be aware of it's existence because it cannot perceive... but, it does exist.
Computers exist... BUT are they AWARE they exist???
I believe the answer is "NO". Yet they are smart... smarter than some humans...lol.... but only concioussness can be aware of itself and percieve experiences ... a computer cannot be aware of it's existence because it cannot perceive... but, it does exist.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up
Unfortunately those words are not homologous for me, so I think without going into it, we'll have to agree to differ
Unfortunately those words are not homologous for me, so I think without going into it, we'll have to agree to differ
| QUOTE (AriAnnis @ Apr 08, 05:53 AM) |
| Computers exist... BUT are they AWARE they exist??? I believe the answer is "NO". Yet they are smart... smarter than some humans...lol.... |
computers are hardly smart. They are simply very good at performing certain well-defined computational tasks that humans program them to do. But being smart involves much more than this. It involves adaptation, plasticity, thinking outside of the box, and much more. Computers can't do these things, and it is requisite that we more fully understand how the human brain is functioning before computers will ever be performing similar tasks, precisely because it will be necessary for humans to program such features into computers in the first place, unless you're imaginative and optimistic enough to believe that evolutionary algorithms will the way to go for developing AI. So your statement that computers are smart either suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of what a computer does, or it suggests a lack of understanding concerning what constitutes being 'smart'.
This existence / perception thing is all down to different word usage I think.
I have to remain convinced that...
I exist.
When I am awake, I am aware and exist, and can be aware that I exist.
When I am asleep*, I am not aware and exist even though I have no perception [awareness] or awareness that I exist.
When I don't exist I will not be aware of that fact.
Therefore I exist with or without perception.
I cannot have perception if I do not exist.
*A bomb going off would break into my unawareness and wake me. But if I were knocked unconcious this path of argument becomes void.
For practical purposes, if I exist I am aware.
I have to remain convinced that...
I exist.
When I am awake, I am aware and exist, and can be aware that I exist.
When I am asleep*, I am not aware and exist even though I have no perception [awareness] or awareness that I exist.
When I don't exist I will not be aware of that fact.
Therefore I exist with or without perception.
I cannot have perception if I do not exist.
*A bomb going off would break into my unawareness and wake me. But if I were knocked unconcious this path of argument becomes void.
For practical purposes, if I exist I am aware.
Hi Ariannis,
I will have to remain with my view I am afraid.
You may be right, with your view, we may both be wrong!
Bye for now.
I will have to remain with my view I am afraid.
You may be right, with your view, we may both be wrong!
Bye for now.
| QUOTE (rhymer) |
| For practical purposes, if I exist I am aware. |
What is the "I" you're referring to? Your ego that feels confined to your body? This is an illusory "I". The "I" exists regardless of whether you have access to its consciousness or not. You are needlessly confining yourself to your ego, but there is much more than this.
Hi Guest:
I'm well aware of what smart is.... but like all words they are subject to more than one interpertation. They appear smart . . . just like some humans. They can handle most calculations faster than most humans --wouldn't you agree? This is the appearance of smart... Even though it can handle all these calculations faster than a human it is by no means smart... in the ordinary sense.
Smart in my opinion is the ability to make something out of NOTHING.
I'm well aware of what smart is.... but like all words they are subject to more than one interpertation. They appear smart . . . just like some humans. They can handle most calculations faster than most humans --wouldn't you agree? This is the appearance of smart... Even though it can handle all these calculations faster than a human it is by no means smart... in the ordinary sense.
Smart in my opinion is the ability to make something out of NOTHING.
Rhymer:
I will have to remain with my view I am afraid.
You may be right, with your view, we may both be wrong!
What view explains all three... past, present and future . . .better than the way I have seen it? If you have another view that I could possible entertain I would be interested in hearing it . . .
We see the world in three dimensions with our eyes... but, if you had that set of glasses that would allow you to see the fourth dimension. . . you would see the 'Hall of Time'
Even so... it wouldn't change a thing unless more people could see it with you . . . That would be the only way to change the outcome... till then it is a FIXED needlepoint picture!
I will have to remain with my view I am afraid.
You may be right, with your view, we may both be wrong!
What view explains all three... past, present and future . . .better than the way I have seen it? If you have another view that I could possible entertain I would be interested in hearing it . . .
We see the world in three dimensions with our eyes... but, if you had that set of glasses that would allow you to see the fourth dimension. . . you would see the 'Hall of Time'
Even so... it wouldn't change a thing unless more people could see it with you . . . That would be the only way to change the outcome... till then it is a FIXED needlepoint picture!
| QUOTE (AriAnnis @ Apr 09, 03:20 AM) |
| Smart in my opinion is the ability to make something out of NOTHING. |
that sounds like a definition for CREATIVITY, whereas SMART (i.e., INTELLIGENCE) would be defined in terms of successful adaptability to novel environments and situations (perhaps through the successful application of CREATIVELY-generated solutions to various problems). The point being that being CREATIVE and being SMART are not the same thing.
Guest of Apr 08, 01:42PM,
"I" am not aware of the experts definition of the concept of "I".
For "me", "me" is all that which is contained within, and is part of my body.
Everything else is obviously external to "me".
Something within "me", controls some aspects of my body and behaviour, and "I" may or may not be able to impose my will over it for some of them. "I" call this my sub-concious.
"I", which is part of "me" has control of aspects of "me's" and its own behaviour, actions, thoughts etc.
"I" also have several different memory storage areas within "me".
Sometimes "I" use "I" and "me" interchangeably.
Obviously anything within I or me is contained in me.
But some things contained within me are not contained within I.
They are nonetheless, mentally contained within I because I contain a model of everything in me.
This is off the cuff and may need some refinement.
You refer to the ego, and claim that I am limited to operation within its grip only.
How do you know my superego and ultraego didn't see my ego off when I was 13years and then 18 years old?
"I" am not aware of the experts definition of the concept of "I".
For "me", "me" is all that which is contained within, and is part of my body.
Everything else is obviously external to "me".
Something within "me", controls some aspects of my body and behaviour, and "I" may or may not be able to impose my will over it for some of them. "I" call this my sub-concious.
"I", which is part of "me" has control of aspects of "me's" and its own behaviour, actions, thoughts etc.
"I" also have several different memory storage areas within "me".
Sometimes "I" use "I" and "me" interchangeably.
Obviously anything within I or me is contained in me.
But some things contained within me are not contained within I.
They are nonetheless, mentally contained within I because I contain a model of everything in me.
This is off the cuff and may need some refinement.
You refer to the ego, and claim that I am limited to operation within its grip only.
How do you know my superego and ultraego didn't see my ego off when I was 13years and then 18 years old?
Ariannis,
Thanks for your response.
I have never really thought too much about the future so far in my life.
This is mainly because of the fact that I don't know what will happen next [except for projects over which I and only I think I control].
I have read about clairvoyants and prophets. I did my thesis on ESP [when I was a lot younger], becuase I was interested in it at the time. I remember being fairly convinced by an account by one person who claimed to see two different outcomes for a 'client', depending on a choice of action.
Thinking about the future now, it seems to me that everything that is going to happen is somehow caused by things that have happened already, ie., in the past. Life seems to be a sequence of causes and effects - trillions of them!
So, if the future is totally dependent on what has happened already, anybody who is aware of what has happened already, who knows all the relationships that can occur between all types of causes and all types of effects could not only predict what could [not can, because there are probably more than one possible effects of each cause] happen next, they may also be able to 'see' it. By 'see' I mean envisage or imagine what it will be like.
The future [as a sequence of actual events] has not yet happened, and it does not exist, but is nonetheless 'scripted' or bound or limited by what has already happened 'in the past'. I suppose in this sense it is pre-ordained [dictated by what has already happened].
A clairvoyant might have sufficient knowledge in a particularly small area of !all causes and effects! [lets say for one closely known person] and might be able to make reasonable predictions for that area, but only if very well versed in recent applicable causal events and the choice of most likely effects that could arise [perhaps based on known patterns of behaviour for that person].
I'll ponder further on this topic and come back if anything seems solid.
Thanks for your response.
I have never really thought too much about the future so far in my life.
This is mainly because of the fact that I don't know what will happen next [except for projects over which I and only I think I control].
I have read about clairvoyants and prophets. I did my thesis on ESP [when I was a lot younger], becuase I was interested in it at the time. I remember being fairly convinced by an account by one person who claimed to see two different outcomes for a 'client', depending on a choice of action.
Thinking about the future now, it seems to me that everything that is going to happen is somehow caused by things that have happened already, ie., in the past. Life seems to be a sequence of causes and effects - trillions of them!
So, if the future is totally dependent on what has happened already, anybody who is aware of what has happened already, who knows all the relationships that can occur between all types of causes and all types of effects could not only predict what could [not can, because there are probably more than one possible effects of each cause] happen next, they may also be able to 'see' it. By 'see' I mean envisage or imagine what it will be like.
The future [as a sequence of actual events] has not yet happened, and it does not exist, but is nonetheless 'scripted' or bound or limited by what has already happened 'in the past'. I suppose in this sense it is pre-ordained [dictated by what has already happened].
A clairvoyant might have sufficient knowledge in a particularly small area of !all causes and effects! [lets say for one closely known person] and might be able to make reasonable predictions for that area, but only if very well versed in recent applicable causal events and the choice of most likely effects that could arise [perhaps based on known patterns of behaviour for that person].
I'll ponder further on this topic and come back if anything seems solid.
| QUOTE (Dan @ Apr 08, 01:58 AM) |
| btw, Laz.... you are at the moment about 88 posts behind me to take over position 10 on the all-time poster list. I don't know what I'll do if this happens |
I have a confession to make. Back when the forum assigned gold stars as a measure of how many posts members made, my wife wanted to have all those gold stars beside her name, and so I amused her by artificially inflating her number of posts, which resulted in her being listed in the top ten posters of all time. Since the gold stars feature is no longer in effect, and in fairness to Laz, I have since de-inflated my wife's posts... which means that Laz is now ranked #10. Congratulations Laz.
That also means that Dan is moved up a notch to #9.
Is everyone familiar with E=MC2? If so... I had a thought this weekend . . .
#1 Is a thought matter or energy??? What does a thought weigh? If it doesn't weigh a thing then it is energy right?
#2 If it IS energy... what happens to it when it speeds along or slows down or focus's as in meditation. Are these not the altered states our mind gets to???
#3 What happens to Energy when it reaches certain velocities???? Does it turn into matter???
#1 Is a thought matter or energy??? What does a thought weigh? If it doesn't weigh a thing then it is energy right?
#2 If it IS energy... what happens to it when it speeds along or slows down or focus's as in meditation. Are these not the altered states our mind gets to???
#3 What happens to Energy when it reaches certain velocities???? Does it turn into matter???
Ari, here are my answers to your questions:
#1: matter is frozen energy, roughly speaking. Thought seems to be some sort of energy, or at least has an energy level associated with it.
#2: you're talking about changes in energy levels? Are you familiar w/ basic physics of statistical mechanics or even newtonian mechanics? Just as different configurations of systems can inhabit the same energy levels, altered states do not seem to necessarily imply altered energy, though there may be some correlation between them (which does not imply a causal link).
#3: Energy does not turn into matter on reaching certain velocities. I would only suggest reading the physics literature more. I feel as if your concept of energy is wrong somewhere, but I'm unable to point out exactly where. And who knows, I may be wrong.
#1: matter is frozen energy, roughly speaking. Thought seems to be some sort of energy, or at least has an energy level associated with it.
#2: you're talking about changes in energy levels? Are you familiar w/ basic physics of statistical mechanics or even newtonian mechanics? Just as different configurations of systems can inhabit the same energy levels, altered states do not seem to necessarily imply altered energy, though there may be some correlation between them (which does not imply a causal link).
#3: Energy does not turn into matter on reaching certain velocities. I would only suggest reading the physics literature more. I feel as if your concept of energy is wrong somewhere, but I'm unable to point out exactly where. And who knows, I may be wrong.
Ganji:
I'm not THAT familiar with physics, quantum theories, etc., but, I am curious if that equation was reversed what the outcome would be... I mean our thoughts are energy ... how fast do they move? faster than light speed? I'm curious if the equation were reversed would energy become matter??? Thoughts would become very real then I would think!
I have experienced two times where TIME seemed to slow and almost stop (at least in my perception/ awareness). Both times my thoughts were racing to an extraordinary degree and I was focused.
During meditation... I have experienced myself being free of the body and looking at my physical body from outside it. Though during meditation the mind slows and focuses. Both have to do with issues of speed/velocity it seems --- but got me to different altered states.
Have you ever seen that Star Trek episode (old version) were there were beings that moved faster than we do. They put a substance in Kirks coffee that sped him up to their time frame. Now the enterprise crew did not see Kirk... but Kirk saw all of them moving slowly. They couldn't see him because he was moving faster than their reference points allowed.
All I'm saying is that if our minds can move faster then ...is it possible we will see something that we did NOT formerly see before?
I'm not THAT familiar with physics, quantum theories, etc., but, I am curious if that equation was reversed what the outcome would be... I mean our thoughts are energy ... how fast do they move? faster than light speed? I'm curious if the equation were reversed would energy become matter??? Thoughts would become very real then I would think!
I have experienced two times where TIME seemed to slow and almost stop (at least in my perception/ awareness). Both times my thoughts were racing to an extraordinary degree and I was focused.
During meditation... I have experienced myself being free of the body and looking at my physical body from outside it. Though during meditation the mind slows and focuses. Both have to do with issues of speed/velocity it seems --- but got me to different altered states.
Have you ever seen that Star Trek episode (old version) were there were beings that moved faster than we do. They put a substance in Kirks coffee that sped him up to their time frame. Now the enterprise crew did not see Kirk... but Kirk saw all of them moving slowly. They couldn't see him because he was moving faster than their reference points allowed.
All I'm saying is that if our minds can move faster then ...is it possible we will see something that we did NOT formerly see before?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.