Dr. Miranda Jones questions whether [the Medusan] Ambassador Kollos is, Pboy, I can honestly say that I love my wife more than I love my dog. Wow. Perhaps this is the beginning of the "humility" that our Christian friends speak of that is necessary to find God and be saved. Deep truth is what is defined by the nature of the universe and the laws which govern its behaviors and limits. My main point in the whole thing is that truth is not a metaphysical concept, and its definition is particular to whatever context it is embedded in. (reality)Even if the world WERE all in your head, the part of your mind that is memory is making a simulation of that world! Glad to be of service!As an aside, My mom saw this movie with us kids and there was this sour neighbor of ours who was the spitting image of this monster (absent the leaves of course). (I'm not talking here about subsistence hunters that need to hunt to live, like Inuits or something like that, btw. (YI, 13-11-1924, p.377) In such a context I might be able to see it as you do. Perhaps some day you'll tell us what YOU think (the)truth is.Who knows, you might?! I said when I heard this that it was probably an urban legend, but who knows? I'm sure that theists of all stripes and colors feel that 'someday' you might come to 'realise' that The Big Brain is GOD.-pboy------------------------------Funny you should say that. People are impacted by your actions in this dream. For as I am blessed, my earth sisters are currently suffering genital mutilation, forced prostitution, slavery, rape, disease, hunger and poverty unlike I have ever known. And if the BB speculation is correct, also thus we have carefully constructed the universe that we find ourselves in, and it all makes sense because it has to. the. Where any crime against me is punishable by our laws - and seen as an outrage in our communities. How rude! You're probably the kind of guy who's open to interpreting love as a locus in a multidimensional spectrum of sensations (qualia), perhaps a fractal locus -- all geometrically measurable with the right perspective. It is only in my dreams that I wish never to awake at all.My dreams hold scary visions, harrowing scenes that I know will fade as the light of day emerges.It is when I wake that the stuff of true nightmares begin - because they never end. They seem to revel in it. (ignore this if you don't believe it to be excrutiatingly accurate, but if you DO you are admitting to wordplay)I AM accusing you of wordplay and you reply that I just wasn't following your trail of words closely enough!(? All pictures below are linked to various things. (to be cont'd). I didn't bring it up to prove that our subjective experiences were not reproduceable by the ingestion and contemplation of mere data; I brought it up because the hard data (the light frequency number of "blue" at least proves that something exists (light in the spectral range of blue) that is the SAME when it gets to (all of)our eyes, even though we MAY all see it differently. Ed, you say, "I once heard of an experiment.."Yea, and I once read a book in which the lovers were slain, for they knew not the words of the Free State's refrain.. which said.."(This is a Bowie 'inside joke' and ONLY a Bowie 'inside joke' and completely not being 'sarcastic' to you ED! Note that an appeal to science in general, or to similar stimuli (e.g. A sort of instinctual mathematical ability is present in some insects. A quite relevant quote I found while watching "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" ", you are inadvertently admitting that independant reality exists for you to 'answer at'!The 'mind' is a process and we CAN examine it!Even if we imagine that it dribbles down to solipsism, then you are just saying that what YOU think of as 'independant reality' is all in your mind, right?But, it is still part of your mind that is different and examinable from the rest of your mind(your streaming conscious) and you are, in the end, only pushing this 'independent reality' back one step, incorporating it as 'part of your mind', only playing word games.Example.My cockatiel 'might be' all in my mind, but he is independant of my will, I cannot simply 'will' him away.He certainly is part of the process of my consciousness to me, but he is EITHER part of independent reality OR he is a part of my mind that simulates an independant reality.And they are not 'at odds', they're the same thing really for each of us independantly of each other.Other example.. Sorry Brian, I can't remove that bad link. ", is a basic philosophical question(first chapters of books upon first chapters)..then you start PAST that, pass all that horseshit, go on to realism, materalism etc. It is the very opposite of truth. (Just kidding) Actually, I love the banter and you really have me on my toes here.To answer you questions, yes you are right. Confusing that, is exactly the same as you suddenly 'becoming a babe in the woods', not knowing that this question, "How can we know anything is real? )I'm trying to interrupt you reasoning at it's weakest point, saying that solipsm and skepticism by exploding that myth that we somehow would 'need' to 'get outside our minds'.There's NO getting out of that cheap trap, that, 'we can't get out of our minds' BUT looking at the trap from the perspective that reality is 'out there' or 'in here' in my mind(a simulated reality) is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!My cockatiel example, juxatposes a real reality with a simulated reality and Brian 'shrugs' and points out that to 'disappear' my bird I only need to 'shoo' him through my simulatedly-real window with my simulatedly-real hands.But you LOSE the 'argument' from skepticism or solipsism when you do this, because you are admitting that your notion that the universe might be a simulation in your mind is NO DIFFERENT than if it were not a simulation.I'm saying that one's mind is a streaming consciousness and together with the input from one's senses and memory, one does INDEED create a simulation(sometimes, by all accounts, a very BAD simulation) of one's "world".How would a philosopher envision 'reaching across that divide' between objects themselves(e.g.) Now the funny thing is, when I was a kid I didn't get things like this wrong very often, and the book that I used to look them up recently was the SAME book that I used to have as a kid, the very same one. My grandparents came here to escape Czarist Russia, and by so doing, managed to avoid the horrors of the Holocaust that wiped out every remaining relative that still lived in Europe during Hitler's time. Funny if you turned out to be right, huh? "no real, solid existence whatsoever. But Briiiaannnnnnnn.....I can't take YOUR word for it any more than I can accept Jeezus as my savior just because Observant says he's real... Ah, yes, electro-magnetism, it'll glue stuff it'll bleach stuff, it'll stick stuff to the walls! You might have noticed that I have a bit of a problem with this, as a conclusion to anything, "..we can never get 'outside' our mind dependent senses to see if they 'really' match.."I think that I am a streaming consciousness, a process, the sum of many processes. Therefore it is YOU who is begging the question here.You're just implying the first implied premise, that skepticism and therefore solipsism has been defeated then reneging on that implication later, restarting your own argument, chasing your tail, begging. This kind of truth, however, exists only when there is a person to ask the question, "Is this statement true or false." Purple Walls should lower the rating of any episode, but I really don't think that "Is There No Truth In Beauty?" Therefore it is YOU who is begging the question here.You're just implying the first implied premise, that skepticism and therefore solipsism has been defeated then reneging on that implication later, restarting your own argument, chasing your tail, begging. Time is the reality we can only escape with death. Now, Spock... this is to the death... or to life for both of us. And the need to 'get outside' your mind is entailed by realism, the correspondence theory and empiricism: if objects exist independently of the mind (realism) *and* if we can only know them in a mind dependent way (through the senses, upon which we build our concepts, i.e. Face it, it's all just thought. Pop! Brian:Another great start to an in depth conversation! So I keep looking. Imagine this, and let it run and "evolve" for a few hundred millennia, and then ask yourself how would it be so different from what we all have (or think that we have) now? At a time like this, I am sometimes tempted to "thank" the God I grew up with, until I realize that there is no earthly reason that any God would have seen fit to bestow His blessings on my family, when so many others, many of them more deserving than I, seem to have escaped His notice. There are also subconscious factors. Brian,Who is 'The Author' and why is he such a fascist? "No, no, no! If you commit murder in THIS dream, you get life in prison, again only in THIS dream... You're still free in all your other dreams, though.... lol...(I'm shorthanding the BB-Dream thingy again, sorry). This is not rational. "More like thoughts than particles. Captain's log, supplementary. Now, keep those essential facts in mind, and work through the argument again. Is There In Truth No Beauty? This is why atheistic, science-minded philosopher like Russell have called Hume's philosophy (which was MREC) a dead end:http://books.google.com/books?id=obY48lTt-2AC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=BERTRAND+RUSSELL+empiricism+logical+dead+end&source=web&ots=vWV7uC3jVt&sig=VAmf8FFnfKGgSJuexa7rKvbFjqk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result(see the third paragraph)Note, *not all empiricists are Humean empiricists*; e.g. Truth speaks to the intellect, beauty to the emotions. I simply can't make much of it. Heck, without some concept of time, there would be no way to learn at all. I can't, because I have no experience doing it, which is the quickest threshold to over come my doubt and to accept the seemingly impossible as truth. It went from the hot plasma of a distant star's photosphere to your retina, in zero time. No insult. The other one is my favorite: the sound of one hand clapping. LOL, oneblood! Joined: Feb 3, 2015. Nice to see you here. What a contrast. When I started to *empathize* with my prey. I am suitably impressed. "This reminds me of Frank Jackson's 'New Knowledge Argument,' which is usually explicated with the help of the 'Mary the Colorblind Scientist' thought experiment:Mary isn't really colorblind, but she's confined to a room in which everything she sees is either black or white (assume that she's always been in the room, that she's never seen any colors, that there are no mirrors in the room, and that her body, hands, etc. Eric: Please do clarify the concept of Truth for me. Even the BB itself of course. You know it's there but our eyes are evolved to NOT SEE IT! This "knowledge," this "truth" of mine makes me very happy. So for instance, to me the killer or the hunter of animals (I was once one myself as a boy) needs to realize that in this world at this time, it is no longer necessary to cause needless suffering for our succinolcholic pleasure. For instance, a carrion beetle will lay eggs on a dead animal that it has buried, and if the animal corpse is too small to support the whole clutch of eggs, she will "trim" the clutch down to the right amount by destroying eggs or larvae. If they could have been proven, the universe wouldn't have allowed them to happen. One should strive toward the ideal of complete rationality, no? Although often cited by some fans as evidence of a "larger message" in Star Trek, the "IDIC" ("Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations") medallion that Spock wears during the dinner scene had much baser origins. Jones says she is a telepathtasked with performing a Vulcan mind meld with the ambassador, which has never been done before. And by the way Eric, when I originally wrote this post I had you in mind. I made a conscious choice years ago that living as if I were the only consciousness in the universe would be boring. A thought for Thanksgiving:If I believed that there was a deity who blessed me with all the bounty I've ever known, I'd also have to understand that the same god chooses to condemn others to a life of hell on earth. As I explained, I feel that it opens a door to the unreal. Eric, you say, "Here are two uncontroversial claims: Our senses are mind-dependent; reality is mind-independent. Oh, by the way, the right answer to "What is the sound of one hand clapping" is to slap the questioner. :-). This comment has been removed by the author. Same result. They almost always follow up with, "Then why do it?" That other people believe that their own version is truth. ....................."But, presumably, we have passed pure skepticism to get to realism and materialism. No small feat. In other words, IF the book once read differently, then it only did so because REALITY was different at that time. A mind which is eternal.On the second question pertaining to flying. We live in a prison and there is no escape from that truth. Because I can excuse the killers only if I know that it's all *not real. There is no traveling backward or forward through time or the space of a thought. The results of the experiment matched relativistic predictions to something like the 9th decimal place in that the einsteinian eq's said that time runs faster in the presence of a gravity field.This is also noted in the vicinity of black holes, where the so-called "event horizon" is a time potential surface upon which time stands still (this is not the usual definition, I know. Do you guys/gals (for tj) think time is extant? I mean, even if the person had a personal experience of God, a "vision" for example, they as a rational person must at least accept the possibility that it was an hallucination or some other illusory experience and not really what they thought it was, since these things demonstrably happen to people sometimes. From the other direction, if protons(for example) WERE like little marbles our universe would be operating on a totally different principle than we know it is because half marbles are still solid as is the powder of crushed marbles.The notion of solidity only works at our size where the electromagnetic force (negative-negative and positive-positive repulsion)'creates' the solidity that we take for granted.Physicists noticing that a proton is 'almost nothing' and being in some kind of 'awe' about that is DAFT if you think about it.If protons weren't orders of magnitude smaller than hydrogen atoms then electrons would be bashing into them all the time and the universe would consist of neutrons!
Vaultek Lifepod Troubleshooting, Pyramid Of The Moon And Sun, Speaker Connector Adapters, The Walkmen The Rat, Media Moment Mini Filibusters Worksheet Answers, Bacb Supervision Requirements 2021, Hemp Wick Lighter, Maja Salvador Movie, Junior Masterchef Australia Winner 2020, How To Grow 2 Inches Taller In A Week, Boehringer Ingelheim Rabvac 3,
Leave a Reply