i used to think there was a true dichotomy between things in the physical world and things that were abstract or imagined.
but now i can't seem to understand why i ever thought that way.. i consider the mental to be a subset of the physical world (just as trout are a subset of fish).
all ideas, abstractions, imaginings, etc.
Btw Paul, you should try some lucid dreaming :-D Apparently there are some techniques to achieve this. I still want to try this someday, would be awesome
Then you can make your own reality, Matrix- or Inception-style.
You'll be able to tell the difference between the reality your (sub)consciousness creates when dreaming, and the one it observes when awake.
i used to think there was a true dichotomy between things in the physical world and things that were abstract or imagined.
but now i can't seem to understand why i ever thought that way.. i consider the mental to be a subset of the physical world (just as trout are a subset of fish).
all ideas, abstractions, imaginings, etc.
I think it might be the opposite. The appearance of a physical world is created by consciousness.
Interesting idea!
One of the reasons I believe this is my understanding of what scientists see when observing the smallest particles possible. I've read that subatomic particles only exist as particles while they're being observed and measured by a conscious being. Until then they're just waves of energy.
You may be referring to behaviour such as displayed in the double-slit experiment with light or you are maybe referring to the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics?
If not please state a source as I really like this type of stuff :-D
Anyway, as far as I know it's not so much that a conscious being observing the waves changes them into particles. It's just that for some phenomena it's impossible to measure all properties very exact at the same time. And sometimes observing/measuring one of those properties very exact, makes the other one almost impossible to measure or predict.
For instance, the double slit experiment gives the same result if no conscious being is watching them, but it's results are recorded for later viewing.
If this is true then it might also be true that the entire material world doesn't exist unless consciousness is observing it.
Does that mean that the material world you are observing is not the same as the one I am observing?
And we also know that we can take away a person's consciousness by changing his material properties.
E.g. I can remove your consciousness from my world by destroying or damaging your material body.
Or I could pause your consciousness by adding chemicals to your body (anaesthetics), and bring back your consciousness by removing the chemicals.
If the material world follows from our consciousness, I would think that would be impossible?
i used to think there was a true dichotomy between things in the physical world and things that were abstract or imagined.
but now i can't seem to understand why i ever thought that way.. i consider the mental to be a subset of the physical world (just as trout are a subset of fish).
all ideas, abstractions, imaginings, etc.
For me this is also connected to our thoughts being physical (e.g. 'made of' physics) and chemical processes.
Some people hear voices that are only created inside their brains. We give them some chemical compounds (aka medicine), their brain chemistry changes, and the voices disappear.
And that is just 1 example of chemicals (or magnetic and electrical fields, vibrations, etc.) changing a person's thoughts and behavior.
Apparently all information (which includes thoughts, memories, knowledge, personality) need some kind of medium to be stored and processed on/in. Whether it is our brain, paper or a hard disk.
Makes me also wonder how spirits are supposed to work? Can information exist outside the realm of physics?
If not, can there ever be an (intelligent) being that is strictly 'spiritual' (whatever that may be), and has no physical aspect that deals with storing and processing information?
the netherlands has recognized the church of the flying spagetti monster as an official religion !!.
i am so tempted to join it openly, and see what the reaction of the jw's is, surely they should df me for joining another religion?.
but how silly would that make them look !
Read this great news too :-D
Best thing: Church of FSM has it's 'headquarter' in the same town as where the Dutch JW branch is :-D
BTW their dogma is quite simple and openly available. There are 8 I'd really rather you didn'ts described in the Gospel of the FSM. An overview of these is neatly listed here.
pardon my ignorance but lm a newby in here.lve tried researching it but l cant find a definitive answer.ls it dealing with one particular subject or multiple subjects?.thankyou in advance.regards atomant.my mistake.i meant ttatt.sorry.
For me TTATT is:
- JW.org have many characteristics of a cult, so basically they are on the same level as Scientology, Mormons and other Wac(k)os
- JW.org are very dishonest when representing their own history or current situation, and when presenting 'facts' that support their belief system
- depending on your post-JW beliefs, JW are not God's Chosen People because one of these:
just want to take a moment and mention how exceptional the moderator is here @simon.
been on many many forums and you'll be pressed to find a more fair person.
he creates a safe environment where the chicanery is a minimum.
@Simon, Thanks for running this forum!
@Hadriel, well said.
hey ya'll!
i have been lurking for years on this site and others but never had the courage to post anything.
actually i was afraid of posting on an apostate site in the event i was wrong.
@StepfordWife,
Welcome. Hang in there!
You can't be DFed for not reporting hours.
You can't be DFed for whatever reason if there is only 1 witness (e.g. your husband) against you, and you an refuse to answer any question.
Please keep in mind that none of these people have any auhority , and they have no power over you. They cannot make you talk if you don't want to.
You can flatout refuses to talk to them or meet with them if you wish. You don't have to play the game by their rules.
You don't have to play their game at all.
These people have just as much authority over you as any stranger passing by in traffic: none.
In my case, my wife told the elders I am now an atheist. I politely refused their request to meet. There is nothing they can do until at least 1 other witness to my current beliefs comes forward.
Some friends and family sort of shun me anyway; unfortunately that's how they're wired to think and act.
Anyway, my main point is: you are in charge of you life. You don't owe anyone an explanation (except maybe your husband), and nobody holds any authority over you.
Best wishes!
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
Cofty, I agree.
We don't even know where exactly we should place the border between 'life' and 'not life'.
There is no clear boundary chemical processes without any of the characteristics of life, and chemical processes displaying all (or most) characteristics of life.
Are viroids really too complicated to come to existence from mere chemical reactions?
Nature doesn't conform to the labels humans invent.
And those not understanding evolution often think of life as mammals and other animals (I know I did).
Learning about mere collections of molecules having characteristics of being alive (such as the 3 examples mentioned above) sure made an impression on me...
disclaimer: my graduate degree is in business, not science so i'm writing as a layman in this field.
yes, i know that someone is going to say that evolution does not encompass this topic and should be sectioned off under abiogenesis.
i'm not trying to argue semantics here but it seems like a case of avoiding an uncomfortable subject.
A complex result can be produced by very few and simple processes.
Are snowflakes geometries complex and do they look designed? Yes.
Are their geometries formed by a simple process? Yes .
Are they all designed? No.
But still, all the analogies and word games in the world change nothing about the incredible huge mountains of evidence for evolution, there for those who just care to be honest enough to look.
And while I really tried to find any evidence for creation in order to not have my easy life turned upside down, I found none.
Please show me evidence of creation other than 'it's all very complicated, so God must have done it'
And when that evidence is presented, we can compare it to the evidence for evolution.
adjective.
having or representing the sun as the center, as in the accepted astronomical model of the solar system.. .
the idea that the earth orbits the sun is not right because we don't know how the big bang happened.
Yes and astronomers belief in dark magic and that its every were in the universe well that is just stupid becoz it is light during the day how could that be with dark magic every were.
Also with the large hardon collider they are looking for the 'God Testicle' or Highs Boner well they ain't haven't found d*ck yet
So they know nothing I dunt trust them so helicopter egocentric model clearly evidently wrong beyont dout.
(All of the above is written with greatest respect to those who actually do know how to properly debate whatever side of a discussion)
