77 replies to this topic

[Rlyeh]

Mr Right Wing tends to forget how many times others (myself included) have corrected his misunderstandings of things like color, in fact a number of times he's shown he can't read this own links.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=218961

http://www.unexplain...4

If you need someone to agree with pseudoscience and outdated concepts (he apparently suffers castration anxiety), you need look no further.

Edited by Rlyeh, 18 August 2012 - 12:58 PM.

[StarMountainKid]

I would like to know from how did the OP come up with his hypothesis or conjecture or what ever it is. Where is the evidence that demonstrates that it is the correct description of what it describes?

I can create various scenarios of the nature of Reality within my imagination, but I realize they are all fictions unless I can prove their validity with empirical evidence. Just stating some personal conjecture is true without the support of data confirming its accuracy is an act of faith based on the authority of the unproven conjecture itself.

This may be accepted as philosophical inquiry, but when it is represented as actual fact, the presentation looses its integrity as an honest attempt at an interpretation of the nature of the reality we experience.

[Arpee]

Rlyeh, on 18 August 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Lol. If I didn't know what they meant, I wouldn't have used them.
Considering your rejection of the workings of the brain, "deny" and "pretend" are accurate descriptions.

You say I "reject" the workings of the brain as if man's understanding of it is 100% fact. This is like saying a scientist is "pretending" or "denying" reality by saying that the earth isn't flat. Sometimes as new understandings are made, we need to 'reject' older understandings for truth.

Rlyeh, on 18 August 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

The brain does not "observe", you do not "observe", there is only one observer and physical reality is what is being "seen"

Clearly you're making up your own definitions.

Well here is the definition I am using "observe - Notice or perceive (something)". So whether you I am making up my own definitions or not is irrelevant. Now, I am telling you how I am using the word, so that the message can be properly conveyed.

Rlyeh, on 18 August 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

By definition the mind includes cognitive faculties like choice and thought.

I've already told you how I defined the mind - by observation or awareness, and I already told you how I defined brain - the physical matter which is able to produce thought from response to stimuli (awareness from the mind which it is connected to as all things are). This is the way I am using these words. So, now you know the words I am using and the definitions I am using behind it. Problem solved. No need to consult a dictionary.

Rlyeh, on 18 August 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

While I've repeatedly shown your definitions are inconsistent.

You are trying to debunk a theory based on the reinterpretation of words. That does not make any sense at all.

This is like you not believing in multi-verse theory just because a dictionary may define the universe as "everything that exists". Well, sometimes in theories people give different understandings of words to explain what they are talking about, so in multi-verse theory a universe may be defined as something like "a pocket of space-time" and there are numerous "universes" in this multi-verse.

I am redefining "mind" in order to explain this theory and to say it is "debunked" because of that, is silly.

Edited by Arpee, 18 August 2012 - 08:15 PM.

[ZaraKitty]

This is much like biocentrism, the idea that everything can only exist because we're here to view it, and time/space don't actually exist. Interesting idea :3

[Arpee]

ZaraKitty, on 18 August 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

This is much like biocentrism, the idea that everything can only exist because we're here to view it, and time/space don't actually exist. Interesting idea :3

Not at all like bio-centrism. Humans or physical life forms do not need to exist at all and this mind will still be here. It is the basis behind all physical reality seeing through all - so in away all things are "living" (in a very loose sense of the word))

[lightly]

Mind is reality?     ..  what about before there was mind?  Our minds anyway.  Did the universe not form stars and solar systems,  and stuff,   without our knowledge and consent?    I suspect so, because we can see the process continue.

I sort of like arpee's idea of some sort of all encompassing , all empowering mind.      hmm,  sounds familiar somehow.

[Arpee]

lightly, on 18 August 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Mind is reality?

No, reality is the suit that mind is wearing, but there is only one mind giving the illusion of individual minds.

lightly, on 18 August 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

what about before there was mind?

What The Mind actually is was explained in the original post. It will answer your question.

lightly, on 18 August 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Our minds anyway.

There is no "our" mind, just like there is no "my" space, space is space and that is it. People choose to put the word "my" or "your" on it as if it can actually be owned.

lightly, on 18 August 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Did the universe not form stars and solar systems,  and stuff,   without our knowledge and consent? I suspect so, because we can see the process continue.

The mind is always in the present moment aware of now, now, and now... So the so-called "past" or "future" is irrelevant to it.

[Kazoo]

Do you actually believe this? Because while its a nice idea its more  a philosophical viewpoint then a theory.

[Rlyeh]

Arpee, on 18 August 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Well here is the definition I am using "observe - Notice or perceive (something)". So whether you I am making up my own definitions or not is irrelevant. Now, I am telling you how I am using the word, so that the message can be properly conveyed.

Which the brain does, so you're rejecting scientific evidence.

Quote

You are trying to debunk a theory based on the reinterpretation of words. That does not make any sense at all.

Please don't call your garbage a theory; hell it's not even a hypothesis. A theory explains evidence, not denies it. What you've got is unsubstantiated nonsense.

[Arpee]

Rlyeh, on 19 August 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

Which the brain does, so you're rejecting scientific evidence.


Please don't call your garbage a theory; hell it's not even a hypothesis. A theory explains evidence, not denies it. What you've got is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Ok, I am done debating with you. I will not keep answering the same questions to the same person. Now, you called this theory "garbage" just because you lack understanding. I wish you best and I hope that we can understand each other on other topics. Peace!

[StarMountainKid]

Arpee, can you comment on my Post #62? You have no obligation to do so, of course, but I think it would be helpful in this discussion if we knew how you came to your conclusions as stated in the OP.

This is in the Philosophy section, so I think empirical evidence for your thoughts are probably not needed, but maintaining that your ideas are the truth, I  think some reasons for your dedication to your ideas could be offered.

Edited by StarMountainKid, 19 August 2012 - 06:48 PM.

[Arpee]

StarMountainKid, on 18 August 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

I would like to know from how did the OP come up with his hypothesis or conjecture or what ever it is. Where is the evidence that demonstrates that it is the correct description of what it describes?

Thoughts are created by neuron through bio-electric communication in the brain. The only thing "in-between" these communications is "space" which is how I got the idea that this "space" is the "mind" (the area that is "observing") this space. This isn't proof, this is just a theory.

StarMountainKid, on 18 August 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

I can create various scenarios of the nature of Reality within my imagination, but I realize they are all fictions unless I can prove their validity with empirical evidence. Just stating some personal conjecture is true without the support of data confirming its accuracy is an act of faith based on the authority of the unproven conjecture itself.

This is very true, but there are somethings about this theory that are fact but for some reason people choose to reject, such as:

Everything is made of energy - there is no "me" energy or "you" energy - it is all connected making up atoms and the physical world
Energy is always fluctuating - this "wavering movement" is what creates this reality (for each present moment)
"Clutter" and "solidness" is an illusion, everything is made up of atoms freely flowing about in space (and even 99.9% empty space in atoms)
The Past and The Future is just a thought happening in the brain in "THIS" current moment - another illusion
The brain chooses to "name" and split things up in "categories" when in reality - reality just exists (no "light" vs "dark"; "good" vs "evil")

So here are some things that are fact, With this it is safe to conclude that reality is just one "flow" of energy happening in this current moment and it is an ILLUSION/IMAGINATION of the human brain to split things up into categories and split reality into two pieces such as "good" or "bad" everything is just happening.

StarMountainKid, on 18 August 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

This may be accepted as philosophical inquiry, but when it is represented as actual fact, the presentation looses its integrity as an honest attempt at an interpretation of the nature of the reality we experience.

Not once did I say that "Mind is space is absolute fact" I am only responding in regards to the theory, but what is absolute fact is that reality is continuous unfolding of the present moment, and past and future is just "thought" about - not the real focus of reality - and all is connected as one since there is really no such thing as "separation" in the quantum world. Even so-called "emptiness/void" has energy - it is all connected. Unity is an absolute fact but it is difficult for the human brain to accept if it has been so busy labeling things and splitting up reality into two pieces. There is no such thing as possession - "my" or "yours" this is just a mental projection on reality - not something factual. There is no way to "examine" if someone owns something unless they tell you, even if they are holding that item, in reality it is just "a human holding an item" there is no such thing as possession in reality...

There are many illusions that the human brain can hold on to and most won't even realize that it is just an illusion.

In reality "land" is "land" and cannot be owned - only lived on - it is human agreement in their own delusional brain that agrees to these ideas.

[StarMountainKid]

Ok, thanks for responding.

[The Id3al Experience]

Arpee, on 16 August 2012 - 09:51 AM, said:

The mind is the observer, the mind is the thinker, the physical body is the bearer of sensation.

I thought the mind didnt think? I thought the brain does?

I agree that a thought is a electrical and all - but the brain only processes this - the brain didnt think it up.. the brain processes that thought that the mind observed, but what coursed the thought to arise into an electrial current?

An expereince maybe?


But I am agreeing to te fact we are all energy and there is no YOU or ME, I agree, we are all one - but this gift of consiousness has been given 'per say' and there is point in it all - I guess it depends on what path you follow.

Consiouness is the driver, the mind is the driver, the observer, ther doer and the doing.

But this is my thoughts, as you have pointed out you do not agree - which is fine. I like your idea here - it just lacks something for me.

Thanks for the topic.

Kind Regards,

Edited by The Id3al Experience, 20 August 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[Mentalcase]

Interesting thread. I'm seeing a lot  "what ifs". I think philosophy is simply something one should not apply to actual science. These deep questions need to be taken from two points of views and left in those categories for what they are, one being the philosophical mind and one being the scientific mind. Facts vs Perception. Neuroscience has all the answers we seek basically. As black and white as neuroscience can be, it does delve into the gray. I do not see a straight-forward analogy to the universe or quantum world via neuroscience. The theory of everything would not include the mind. The mind or brain or whatever you wanna call it, would be considered an after-effect of the cause (creation).


The mind (consciousness) is still created from experience. The observer in us changes from originally, just viewing, to judging and perceiving and reacting accordingly. The past is still very much a reality in our consciousness, as it affects our present and future decisions . Without the past, we would not be able to perceive anything. We would have only our natural instincts to guide us. One could say the mind is merely the soul. However, this is all still very hypothetical and conjectural (as SMK pointed out). The mind/soul is a process of survival and therefore an effect. The benefit of having a thinking brain, is the fact that we can discuss these very complex problems or questions.

To me, the most fascinating thing to take away from any of this confusing subject, is entanglement. http://en.wikipedia....um_entanglement

I think a lot of what's going on in this thread can be simply explained in the above link. I did not read the whole thread, so sorry if it's already been mentioned. I feel as if we are all saying the same thing, lol. Talking in circles and riddles!!! LOVE IT!




The space between (thinking of a Dave Mathews song lol), is exactly what it describes, it is literal. Let's say you have a river with tributaries. The water will not be in the spaces between, it will only flow where it is designed to flow, there is no reason for it not to. Anything and everything is within these neurons, these inner-connecting webs. Perception is only an effect. The creation of thought is the cause. Memory is truly the poison for which our souls are trapped in.


edit: ehh stupid laptop errorsssss

Edited by Mentalcase, 21 August 2012 - 12:03 AM.