Posts by tetrapod.sapien

81

A SIMPLE EXPLANATION of why TIME TRAVEL doesn't work

by Terry in

jw
friends

energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for the new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies) and the parts become the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where all of today's parts are completely dismanteled and are being used (or not) to maintain yesterday/tomorrow.. ever see the film primer?.

said slightly differently...... you go into a room.

on the table is a box of dominoes.

tetrapod.sapien

All we are sofware after all.

computo ergo sum. that is certainly the simplest explanation, though i am wondering lately. but it's all good, whatever the case.

hey man! :)

tetra

81

A SIMPLE EXPLANATION of why TIME TRAVEL doesn't work

by Terry in

jw
friends

energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for the new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies) and the parts become the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where all of today's parts are completely dismanteled and are being used (or not) to maintain yesterday/tomorrow.. ever see the film primer?.

said slightly differently...... you go into a room.

on the table is a box of dominoes.

tetrapod.sapien

dave bro! good to see ya man....

(puff puff)

tetra

(4600 posts, and i am still talking about cannabis. jeez. ha ha! what a stoner i am!)

59

Big Question

by choosing life in

jw
friends

i know there may not be an answer to this question, but i am truly interested in other's views.

i know many are of various beliefs and some do not believe in god at all.. the question is: why does god not stop the suffering?

i watch so many suffer for no reason and no matter how i try to figure it out, i always come back to the fact that a loving parent would not allow their child to suffer needlessly.

tetrapod.sapien

hi choosing!

this was a big issue for me, and perhaps the root of my initial cognitive dissonance as a wit.

The question is: Why Does God Not Stop The Suffering? I watch so many suffer for no reason and no matter how I try to figure it out, I always come back to the fact that a loving parent would not allow their child to suffer needlessly. So why does God?

there are lots of answers. the simplest one is because he doesn't exist. and there is something to be said for simple answers.

the related question, stemming from that, is: why is there human suffering?

a simple answer is because we are apes. heartbreaking, but true.

another answer is that suffering is a state of mind, and as apes we cannot see around this. or evolved the ability to see around it. but even in the most horrid cases of "suffering", there are still lessons to be learned, if not by the sufferer, then by any observers. this sounds cold, but it's not. the sad part is that so many people believe that the way out of suffering is by way of some political or material solution. when really, the beginning way out of suffering is only something you can achieve by learning to stand aside of your thoughts, emotions and even "suffering", and see it for what it is: indifference on the part of the universe *and ignorance in our mind. heartbreaking, but true. and the rest of the way out of it is to find the strength right now, and to start making positive, conscious changes for yourself. you can do this without hurting others, but it's a balance to strike, for sure. i'm not talking about anything other than the evolution of our consciousness, as humans.

tetra

81

A SIMPLE EXPLANATION of why TIME TRAVEL doesn't work

by Terry in

jw
friends

energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for the new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies) and the parts become the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where all of today's parts are completely dismanteled and are being used (or not) to maintain yesterday/tomorrow.. ever see the film primer?.

said slightly differently...... you go into a room.

on the table is a box of dominoes.

tetrapod.sapien

Let me ask you an honest question. Do you take drugs?
yes.
i guess that you believe this lessens my ability to grow in ways that you (and whatever intellectual culture you belong to) value? if this is the case, let me remind you that "thinking" itself, is a chemical addiction in your own brain, mind, ego, and by extension, body.
The problem with transporting is the annhilation process. The heuristic to process the inventory of your part constituency would be on the order of magnititude beyond compehension. That would be at BOTH ends of the transport process. You can't store that sort of device in the trunk of your car.

terry, this is, like, from a different thread man. anyways, i am so happy to know that you are not into the past or the future, and rather the only thing that is, the now. good for you! i knew you'd come around. baby steps for everyone! ;) tetra

62

WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT......???????

by Terry in

what the hell is the point......?.

1.undeserved kindness.

ask yourself why you don't deserve kindness.

tetrapod.sapien

Your posts contain content which is like passing money you made yourself in Photoshop. They look pretty darned good. But......umm...er......

cool. so you are saying that you have the nature of reality pegged down? wow! i am in awe of you terry. i mean, this must be what you are really saying, since you call my content fabricated. the insinuation is that you are bang on and i'm bang off, as if there were some manifestly real scale of measurement that even comes close to including my experience and knowledge!

well, good for you. finally taking the apes out of darkness, and into the light of reducing materialism. finally! the end of evolution! why yes, since in your worldview, everything will eventually be categorized and filed away because you have the truth, and absolute certainty.

love you terry! you should know that, my bruva from anotha muva!

but...

what the hell is the point!

positive rasta vibrations of ini-versalness to you terry,

tetra

ps: i agree. we are using different currencies. if you ever end up where i am (remember who you're talking to terry. go back through my 4000+ posts if you have forgfotten), and you need to borrow a couple of bucks, no problem. look me up. i'm around still.

62

WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT......???????

by Terry in

what the hell is the point......?.

1.undeserved kindness.

ask yourself why you don't deserve kindness.

tetrapod.sapien

'splain, Lucy!

hey dude!

do you ever have a little voice in your head that helps you walk through problems you come upon? if you do, you're not alone, it's a hallmark of self consciousness. but "mentally ill" people also have a little voice, or several. there's not a huge difference between the two, especially if the problem is so perplexing that you catch yourself talking to yourself.

have you ever noticed that the little voice beats you down sometimes? this creates a physical response in the body called emotions, which in turn feed the little voice in your head who is already beating you down. and the vicious circle of mind and emotions develop.

logic is a tool of the mind. i would call it foolish to think that it exists outside of your mind. if you want to learn to use it as the way cool tool that it is, then fine. but remember, it's just means to an end, not the end itself. you can step outside of it, use it if you want, solve "problems" with it. just don't impose it on others, considering that it then becomes a doctrine, and the imposer an evangelist.

one way only? no thanks. i'll take them all. :)

cheers,

tetra

27

Wow!

by Terry in

hguoht neve otatop yllaer gninettaf i era evol spihc yeht.. the box above contains a whole.. the box on top contains no "meaning" as is.

it must be rearranged to fit our commonly agreed standards.. if we do take the whole of it and rearrange the structure without dropping any of the molecules (word forms) a thought can be communicated.. 1.wholeness, in and of itself, is not useful when communication according to a standard is sought.. 2.in order to pull data out of a whole structure (such as the top box) we must isolate the elements and rearrange them.

if we find a pattern we must further apply standards of logic in order to derrive sense.. 3. the wow!

tetrapod.sapien

agreed about emotions and intellect.

When I stopped believing that I devalued the concept. Now I can't get scared in a film even when I want to! I can be totally alone in the house with all sorts of creaks and shadows and nothing whatever happens to me emotionally.

i went through exactly the same thing! except, now i am even more freaked of psycho homo sapiens in movies about psycho homo sapiens.

when something goes bump in the night, i think: "well, it's probably the house creaking." but i cannot also escape the thought that some psycho has broken into the house, either. the probability is less, but it does happen.

tetra

62

WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT......???????

by Terry in

what the hell is the point......?.

1.undeserved kindness.

ask yourself why you don't deserve kindness.

tetrapod.sapien

Let me ask you an honest question. Do you take drugs?

yes.

i guess that you believe this lessens my ability to grow in ways that you (and whatever intellectual culture you belong to) value? if this is the case, let me remind you that "thinking" itself, is a chemical addiction in your own brain, mind, ego, and by extension, body.

tetra

ps: gumtard! ha ha ha!!

27

Wow!

by Terry in

hguoht neve otatop yllaer gninettaf i era evol spihc yeht.. the box above contains a whole.. the box on top contains no "meaning" as is.

it must be rearranged to fit our commonly agreed standards.. if we do take the whole of it and rearrange the structure without dropping any of the molecules (word forms) a thought can be communicated.. 1.wholeness, in and of itself, is not useful when communication according to a standard is sought.. 2.in order to pull data out of a whole structure (such as the top box) we must isolate the elements and rearrange them.

if we find a pattern we must further apply standards of logic in order to derrive sense.. 3. the wow!

tetrapod.sapien

The heuristics of rearrangment via logic lead to the solution.

if the original problem is framed as a problem of logic, then logic will lead to its solution. of course!

if the problem in the box is not considered a problem of logic, then it is no longer a problem. now it just is something. why worry about what we don't understand logically, when we could just focus on what we know already. if you don't undertsand the box, and you're not into logic and problem solving, then move on.

i think it would be silliness for anyone to say that they could solve a logic problem with emotion, for example. but what if someone, or something, solved the problem with abstraction? you know, jumped to a solution based on a guess, and worked backward through the steps of so-called logic to confirm the rightness of the solution?

to some this would be magic, and to others, nature.

rationality should not be considered the only way, if there are other ways. if logic gets it solved the fastest, then hooray, it wins. doesn't mean it stands alone, especially considering that the problem came from you, was boxed by you, and then solved by you.

The above box contains information .

and this box simply contains meta information, about some box that contains a problem of your own choosing.

Self-reference creates paradox. Why? Because we often cannot tear the bond between an isolated IS-ness and the context of LOGICAL content.

i would personally say that self-reference creates paradox when the dualistic mind is the referer AND the refered. this is not to say that all self reference creates paradox. i believe i safely assume this is what you are talking about since you again speak of a "tear" or separation being required for logic to work. this is, of course, with the assumption that the tool of logic you are using is existing outside of yourself, and the fact that you created, or found, the problem and are trying to solve it without any self-reference is something that is actually accomplishable.

tetra

62

WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT......???????

by Terry in

what the hell is the point......?.

1.undeserved kindness.

ask yourself why you don't deserve kindness.

tetrapod.sapien

totally, i agree. if someone does not have hands and feet with which to drive your car, they should be in the passenger seat. or maybe even in the trunk.

what is the definition of ONENESS you are cruising with here, terry? one from the dictionary, or one of your own? is oneness with the universe experienced, with your mind only? or your whole self? is oneness with the universe known only with mind? and is that even possible, considering the schitzophrenic nature of mind and emotions?

you obviously believe that knowledge is something that one aquires, bit by bit, as you illustrate. do you also think that instantaneous and complete knowledge of the nature of the universe is possible via intuition? if you don't, then this is the systemic difference between where we are coming from.

spinoza said that learned knowledge comes from: 1) hearsay or on authority. 2) by the mere suggestion of experience. 3) by reasoning; and 4) by immediate and complete perception.

i realize that you probably agree with 1,2 and 3, (or i assume, i should say). however, to a materialist, i would think that 4 seems absurd, because i know. i am materialist. i understand the issue! a claim to knowledge by intuition? bollocks! but to one who has had the experience, it could be no more certain as that of a reality. i think it would be impossible to assert the fourth way unless he had experienced something of the like. not that we should take his word for it, because that in itself would just be a version of 1. but this is what i am saying. if you haven't experienced 4, then don't presume that it doesn't exist, you know? that would be like someone saying that 3 doesn't exist because they have never had the experience of rational reasoning. like in the WT.

does that mean that one now has complete technical knowledge of the universe, as the materialist pursues? no, just a complete knowledge of its nature. which is a different way of knowing, is all i am saying. different, but belonging in the category of things "known", regardless of it's material manifestations, and technical aptitude.

take care,

tetra