Debate Mansion

   

Where do you think we came from? (Page 73)

Post Reply New Post

Page 73 of 143

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 967

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 9:30am | IP Logged

i think a lot of this discussion is flawed. In my opinion, we might be suffering from the delusion that the "reality" we experience, the "reality" we perceive, is the absolute true reality, the way things really are. Not so i believe. And that goes for space, time, matter, energy, everything we sense and create in our minds. It's spacetime continuum for starters, not space and not time in the euclidean sense we imagine in our minds, and the implications are huge. We talk of things like wave-particle duality, but if we look at it from light's perspective, it is neither. In our minds and in our science, there is a paradox. As far as light is concerned, there is however no paradox. My sense is we really do not know what light is. And i think it is inherently unknowable, much the case with this world. The world may be beyond what we directly experience and it might be unknowable. In that sense, the only "reality" we have is the reality we perceive in our minds, our consciousness...

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

LovelyPlanetVintage.Wine

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Where do you think we came from? (Page 73)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Vintage.Wine

Goldie

Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012

Posts: 1152

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 10:20am | IP Logged
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum


i think a lot of this discussion is flawed. In my opinion, we might be suffering from the delusion that the "reality" we experience, the "reality" we perceive, is the absolute true reality, the way things really are. Not so i believe. And that goes for space, time, matter, energy, everything we sense and create in our minds. It's spacetime continuum for starters, not space and not time in the euclidean sense we imagine in our minds, and the implications are huge. We talk of things like wave-particle duality, but if we look at it from light's perspective, it is neither. In our minds and in our science, there is a paradox. As far as light is concerned, there is however no paradox. My sense is we really do not know what light is. And i think it is inherently unknowable, much the case with this world. The world may be beyond what we directly experience and it might be unknowable. In that sense, the only "reality" we have is the reality we perceive in our minds, our consciousness...


   Yes ..Yes. Birdie .. ..A lot of twisting and turning was needed ..Even the sham, rhetorical theories were made the part of the discussion ...Cause I have seriously started believing that FREE has been possesed by some Evil Atheist Spirit ...LOL

  Light for us is Particles moving at certain speed, having frequency and wavelength ..But that's a sketchy interpretetion ...For me The Light of Truth is more important ..Which FREE is failing to see each day ...This is why I was insisting that we include the Conciousness as the part of totality. As in the Universe's Wavefunction ..so that we could  unveil the mystery behind many probabilities ... ...But No hell...LOL .So much of trying and still no avail ...LOL

   Vintu ...Tongue




The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

BirdieNumNum

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 10:44am | IP Logged
If virtual particles get acceptance why not frogs and their hearing abilities LOL Lets see...Tongue
 
A man was proudly telling his friend that his son would grow up into a great scientist.  When asked how he could be so sure he replied that at this young age his son had already discovered that a frog hears with its legs. The friend  was surprised and asked what led to that discovery. The father explained -

My son  was investigating the jumping ability of frogs. He put a frog down, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped 15 feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with four legs jumps 15 feet."

He then cut off one of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped ten feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with three legs jumps ten feet."

He then cut off another of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped five feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with two legs jumps five feet."

He then cut off another of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" and the frog jumped two feet, so he wrote in his note book "frog with one leg jumps two feet."

He then cut off the last of the frog's legs, said "jump, frog, jump" but the frog didn't jump. He said "jump, frog, jump" again, but the frog still didn't jump. So he wrote in his note book "frog with no legs can't hear."

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

zorrro

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1146

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 10:45am | IP Logged
Originally posted by BirdieNumNum

My sense is we really do not know what light is. And i think it is inherently unknowable, much the case with this world. The world may be beyond what we directly experience and it might be unknowable. In that sense, the only "reality" we have is the reality we perceive in our minds, our consciousness...


Suppose we do know the unknowable. What would it mean? Is it just one word (say "light") getting translated into other words ("something that makes vision possible", "the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors", "electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles per second")

I always wondered what does it actually mean to "know" something. it looks like all we are doing in the process of knowing is either adding or subtracting words. Munching on a word salad, if you will.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Vintage.Wine

BirdieNumNum

Senior Member

BirdieNumNum

Joined: 07 October 2012

Posts: 967

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 10:50am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Vintage.Wine


   Yes ..Yes. Birdie .. ..A lot of twisting and turning was needed ..Even the sham, rhetorical theories were made the part of the discussion ...Cause I have seriously started believing that FREE has been possesed by some Evil Atheist Spirit ...LOL

  Light for us is Particles moving at certain speed, having frequency and wavelength ..But that's a sketchy interpretetion ...For me The Light of Truth is more important ..Which FREE is failing to see each day ...This is why I was insisting that we include the Conciousness as the part of totality. As in the Universe's Wavefunction ..so that we could  unveil the mystery behind many probabilities ... ...But No hell...LOL .So much of trying and still no avail ...LOL

   Vintu ...Tongue



as humans, we're pretty much wired the same way. We look at the outside world and we can "agree" on what we are seeing. That makes us think that what we're seeing is the only reality or the absolute reality. But we're programmed pretty much the same as the other person, so we're bound to process external data the same way. If you take other species, their "perception" of the world is likely different. In that sense, our minds are not just information processors, they are also "reality" generators. So i think. The materiality we experience, the solidness we feel etc in my opinion are images created in our mind. We are somewhere interpreting reality and in many ways our perceptions are totally inconsistent with other facts. Our minds might be like the monitor that takes data in a certain code (digital bits) and puts it up as an image...In that sense, even matter is likely something we've created in the mind...

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Vintage.Wine

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 10:54am | IP Logged
I ve been wondering about that. If something is unknowable how would one  know when one does  find it ? Is it necessary for one to have a preconceived idea about something n order to recognise it when one finds it ? What if it does not fall in with what one has believed until then? Would one tend to dismiss it as inexplicable? Or would there be some sort of a Eureka moment when one just realises  that thats it!

K.Universe.

Goldie

K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012

Posts: 1146

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 11:03am | IP Logged
Originally posted by _Angie_

I ve been wondering about that. If something is unknowable how would one  know when one does  find it ? Is it necessary for one to have a preconceived idea about something n order to recognise it when one finds it ? What if it does not fall in with what one has believed until then? Would one tend to dismiss it as inexplicable? Or would there be some sort of a Eureka moment when one just realises  that thats it!


I can give an example.

If you take the Higgs Boson for instance, it was first theorized to exist, later experiments were conducted to detect it, and the boson that was found in 2012 is still being studied to see whether it agrees with the predicted properties of the Higgs Boson (certain mass, certain mean lifetime and so on)

That is as far as physical stuff goes.

I don't know what would it mean to know "that" and then realize that you just figured out what "that" is all about.

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 27 February 2013 at 11:07am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by _Angie_

I ve been wondering about that. If something is unknowable how would one  know when one does  find it ? Is it necessary for one to have a preconceived idea about something n order to recognise it when one finds it ? What if it does not fall in with what one has believed until then? Would one tend to dismiss it as inexplicable? Or would there be some sort of a Eureka moment when one just realises  that thats it!


I can give an example.

If you take the Higgs Boson for instance, it was first theorized to exist, later experiments were conducted to detect it, and the boson that was found in 2012 is still being studied to see whether it agrees with the predicted properties of the Higgs Boson (certain mass, certain mean lifetime and so on)

That is as far as physical stuff goes.

I don't know what would it mean to know "that" and then realize that you just figured out what "that" is all about.
In other words to confirm whether you indeed found what you set out to find you would first have to have a very clear picture of it. How would one apply that to seeking The Ultimate Truth or The Absolute Truth?

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Do you think rape is a cultural problem?

2 3

Loving2011 18 1328 12 January 2013 at 10:16am
By LeadNitrate
you think strict parenting is abusive ?

2 3

beforesunrise 17 1412 02 January 2013 at 10:53am
By JalebiHearts
Do u think women think more than men?

2 3 4 5 6 7

be-happy-always 48 3384 16 December 2012 at 3:49pm
By be-happy-always
So you think you can kill your children?

2 3 4 5 6

MagicalKash 41 2295 15 April 2011 at 6:55am
By zorrro
Do you think weather affects mood?

2

Sex.Direction 15 782 17 November 2010 at 10:10pm
By Aleezzay..

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.