Has this been addressed?

[P3nT4gR4m]

so you dont leave the possibility open for something concrete to appear?

that sounds a bit limiting, bro

just because you aint seen it yet or that all other theories fall short doesnt mean its not there

I sort of have seen it, in that I've got a working paradigm borrowed from several existing descriptions, in all probability identical to others. It explains experiences and interactions I've observed in states of consciousness not normally explored by the average man in the street (I'd expect prolly a good few in this forum though). Ultimately there is nothing there except where it all comes from, which is a void in itself. I strongly suspect the 'fear' factor that you describe is experienced by those who see something, in these states of consciousness which is not the prime cause itself.

To make that sound less occultical (it's veering that way) they come into contact with aspects of consciousness they were hithertoo unaware of and make some wierd assumptions, based largely on programmed mammalian threat response.

what is the difference between this discussion here and a Tom and Jerry cartoon?

clearly there is something 'more real' about this dialog than there is in a cartoon

To be perfectly honest (and please dont take this as an insult) This conversation is simply another form of entertainment, in a media that is much more interactive than TJ cartoons. You ask if i'd leave the possibility open for something concrete to appear. I'd say the concrete bit already has appeared. It appeared to me, via consciousness and I have no other means of seeing it than through the illusion of me.

[AFK]

You've (LHX) got a point.  I can see that.  I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion.  It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone.  

[P3nT4gR4m]

You've (LHX) got a point.  I can see that.  I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion.  It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone. 

Sometimes the way it appears conforms to notions of concreteness. It has to otherwise it wouldn't appear as it does. The whole reason I think this way is because it enables me to cut through so much that may appear to be concrete and in fact isn't. The bars of my cell for instance. I still need to 'be' somewhere - you can't do that without a bit of concrete. So ultimately even the concrete aint real, still seems that way but a lot of shit that used to have me hook line and sinker aint there anymore.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You've (LHX) got a point.  I can see that.  I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion.  It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone. 

Our senses and mind have to simplify, distort, and bias everything we percieve with innate and learned heuristics, schemas, fantasies and previous experiences. 


The map never is the territory.


We never can comprehend past our maps, which will always misrepresent the world to some degree.  It's just that some of these maps are more accurate than others.  In the same way that scrupulous scientists never claim they have THE truth, but that their theories are the best model they have based on the evidence. 

[LHX]

You've (LHX) got a point.  I can see that.  I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion.  It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone. 

Our senses and mind have to simplify, distort, and bias everything we percieve with innate and learned heuristics, schemas, fantasies and previous experiences. 


The map never is the territory.


We never can comprehend past our maps, which will always misrepresent the world to some degree.  It's just that some of these maps are more accurate than others.  In the same way that scrupulous scientists never claim they have THE truth, but that their theories are the best model they have based on the evidence. 

here is a question:

can that misrepresenting fragment/factor be isolated?

and if so

can we then say that there is a region where there is no misrepresentation?

where movements are precise and exact and based on 'truth'?

my hunch is yes


you can include some sort of device on your map that makes up for/accounts for any map discrepancies


in other words:

the 'best map' includes an acknowledgement that the map is not the territory

what are the other details of the 'best map'? (new thread)

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

You've (LHX) got a point.  I can see that.  I just don't like the idea of labelling "everything" as a delusion.  It would seem that if everything were a delusion then there would be no logical sense in believing on anything or relying on anything or anyone. 

Our senses and mind have to simplify, distort, and bias everything we percieve with innate and learned heuristics, schemas, fantasies and previous experiences. 


The map never is the territory.


We never can comprehend past our maps, which will always misrepresent the world to some degree.  It's just that some of these maps are more accurate than others.  In the same way that scrupulous scientists never claim they have THE truth, but that their theories are the best model they have based on the evidence. 

here is a question:

can that misrepresenting fragment/factor be isolated?

and if so

can we then say that there is a region where there is no misrepresentation?

where movements are precise and exact and based on 'truth'?

The misrepresenting factors are our sense receptors, brain, and life experience. 

There is no region where there is no misrepresentation, there's always room for refinement.



I don't think anyone has the precise and exact 'truth' but I know some people are closer to it than others.

[LMNO]

Not to get all mathematical on y'all, but one of the main thrusts of Einstein's work was to find an accurate measure of "things" when those things are competely removed from any subjective constant.

That is, the traditional thought was that to measure distance, or time, or velocity, you had to have an observed constant.  But if the observer is moving, it will change the measurement.

Einstein was able to remove the subjective aspect of measurement.  So, you could say that modern physics is the closest in removing the misinterpereting factor.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Modern science, taken as a belief system, is leaps and bounds ahead of most other belief systems, both in terms of usability (what we can accomplish with it) and flexibility (how open it is to re-evaluation. Problem is, as with many other belief systems, a lot of people take it to be gospel. Most 'good' scientists will keep an open mind. Most 'bad' parishioners will hold onto bits that need updating.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Not to get all mathematical on y'all, but one of the main thrusts of Einstein's work was to find an accurate measure of "things" when those things are competely removed from any subjective constant.

That is, the traditional thought was that to measure distance, or time, or velocity, you had to have an observed constant.  But if the observer is moving, it will change the measurement.

Einstein was able to remove the subjective aspect of measurement.  So, you could say that modern physics is the closest in removing the misinterpereting factor.

Sure, and also pretty far removed from use in daily life, too.

[Jenne]

I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life.  Most just don't know how very much that is.

It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind.  Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.

(of course I don't know much about it)

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life.  Most just don't know how very much that is.

It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind.  Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.

(of course I don't know much about it)

How does physics help me choose what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, or what book to read?

[Jasper]

I posed a friend this same query today.  Odd.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life.  Most just don't know how very much that is.

It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind.  Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.

(of course I don't know much about it)

How does physics help me choose what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, or what book to read?

That's why I reckon physics is a better belief system than religion. The bible will tell you exactly what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, what book to read, who to hate, who to kill, who not to fuck ....

Physics, on the other hand, is there when you need it. Say you want to make a little box that cooks food really fast ... Bingo - physics will give you some ideas.

[Triple Zero]

right on - you shouldn't need a religion to tell you what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, what book to read, who to hate, who to kill, who not to fuck etc

that's what you use your brain for.

with physics only telling you the bare essentials on a very basic level like "what will happen if i do this", "how can i accomplish X effectively", it essentially forces you to "Think for yourself schmuck" for the more higher level questions (moral/ethical, what to eat for dinner etc)

maybe i'm glorifying physics too much by saying this, though .. i have the feeling the above statement should be balanced by some reversed barstool of sorts, anyone?

[LMNO]

I don't know about that...most who know physics well feel it's essential to daily life.  Most just don't know how very much that is.

It's one of those "mystery sciences" that would've been considered witchcraft and arcane back in the day, as the complications of it scare the merehume mind.  Takes an extraterrestrial cerebellum to grasp, I believe.

(of course I don't know much about it)

How does physics help me choose what to eat for dinner, what music to listen to, or what book to read?

It doesn't.  Those questions purposefully shove the misinterpreting factor back into the equation.

One should avoid conflation.