Why you don't know what you're talking about

[R3KR]

I agree with him.

Words are nothing more then vibrations in air.

What is important is the meaning you put to them.

If you really think that respect, or love means nothing more

then vibration then it will mean nothing. But if you attach an

emotion to words, then its a diffrent story.

[Immortal Norway]

If noone knows what they are talking about, Korczak don`t know eighter, but he has a point, I have to admit that.

Edited June 25, 2006 by Norwegian Phoenix

[Megalomania]

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know that this guy needs a girlfriend.

As Kratos said: Ignorance is Bliss.

[Caana]

I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know that this guy needs a girlfriend.

As Kratos said: Ignorance is Bliss.

Weel, they comes and they goes.

But i am always there.

[snuffypuffer]

Have any of you ever read Stephen King's Dark Tower books? Towards the end he writes himself into the story, in essence he's creating existence. Every character in his books lives and breathes and has their part to play. Well, anyhow, maybe that's all we are. Characters in a book.

[ama]

The Tibetans say that voice/sound = energy.

Everytime we articulate aloud we are expressing energy much more primal than our words.

Piaget would agree.

[Caana]

Have any of you ever read Stephen King's Dark Tower books? Towards the end he writes himself into the story, in essence he's creating existence. Every character in his books lives and breathes and has their part to play. Well, anyhow, maybe that's all we are. Characters in a book.

That is far closer to the truth then most here in our reality can accept.

[Caana]

The Tibetans say that voice/sound = energy.

Everytime we articulate aloud we are expressing energy much more primal than our words.

Piaget would agree.

If their the one's china displaced and banished to the wilderness, then i believe you.

[stephen84]

Wow, I just read through this thread, I think some of you really need to lay off the LSD for a while.

[Larving]

So he thinks he knows what he's talking about? Well, I've got news for him -- he doesn't know what he's talking about. (For those without a sense of humour - I'm joking )

And for those with a sense of humor - You're right

What he's writing obviously also applies for himself aswell, so basically his theory is an artificial reality about artificial realities which don't exist. And since he was kind enough to write it down in what he says is a faulty way of communication. Every time someone reads it there is created a faulty perception of an artificial reality about an artificial reality, which then again spawns a multitude of artificial realities based on artificial realities - which doesn't exist because none are based from "true" reality.. which doesn't really exist... It's fun, ain't it?

Even though it makes me sound like a jerk, I must admit the first thing I thought after reading the article was: Yes.. And the cow says "moooo", what else?

Edited July 3, 2006 by Larving

[DeadRobot]

Hmm the concept of skeptism within the use of language, intersting but devolving however.

Think of a baby lying in a crib. The baby has yet to form language in its brain. A bird flies through the the window of the baby’s room. The baby goes wild with delight at the incredible miracle it is witnessing! It has no verbal definition for what is what this thing is! It’s wonderful beyond imagining! But sooner or later, the baby’s mother will tell him: “That’s a bird! A bird!” At that point, the word “bird” become the dominant association with the former flying miracle, and it becomes something dull and “known.” But the word bird cannot possible describe the entire reality of what a bird really is, if at all.

I think this statement is

-- meaningless babble --

due to the fact that the object regardless of having a name tagged to it (which in this case is a bird by the baby's mother) is irrelevant due to the fact that the baby is surprised by the object initially and that if the object(or bird) repeatedly appears to the baby then it becomes common place to the baby and this is why it then loses interest to it (in short the novelty wears off).

Humans are not the only ones responsible for this type of reactions through thought, animals do this all the time, example:

Meercats are very frightened by humans, but if a human stays within a visible range but not within a range that they feel frightened they become accustomed to the humans prescence after days and the humans potential threatening novelty wears off and then the human can interact with the meercats better.

In short kens main theory could be correct but it's too short sighted, existance on a whole is fairly pointless if looked at from every non-baised angle but I personally dont think this is a very productive train of thought.

Edited July 3, 2006 by DeadRobot

[Guyver]

So....the end result is that NOTHING exists. False. If nothing else, than the ILLUSION of something exists, and that is SOMETHING!

[IronGhost]

So....the end result is that NOTHING exists. False. If nothing else, than the ILLUSION of something exists, and that is SOMETHING!

Yes, well, inherent in your statement are a lot of interesting conclusions that are difficult to support. Take the phrase "end result." That implies their is some kind of beginning. No matter how hard you search for a beginning, it cannot be found. There always seems to be something before that beginning -- the beginning which leads to an end. But the fact is, there are no "beginnings." Can there be an end result without a beginning of something? Obviously not. The fact is, when we talk about beginnings and ends, we're just arbitrarily jumping into an ocean and choosing up things based on conceptions that we simply invent.

Anything that we lable a "something" cannot be found in reality, when you really think about it. What is on either side of a "something." Always someting else from the common view -- but it's just arbitrary. Take the colors of the spectrum. We think we can find "red" -- but in reality, that's only a decision to filter out all the other colors, all of which are part of a continuous band of light energy for which we have invented a numer of words for. What or where is the end of "red" or what is the sharply defined border of "red". Obviously, there is no such thing. We make the decision to see "red" we're just inventing that. Soem would jump in and say -- "Okay, but the totality of the ligher-energy band exists" -- but then you run into the same problem. You would have to differnetiate the light-energy specrtrum from the rest of all the "somethings" -- which cannot be done.

So we really can't say there is "something" no matter how hard we try. We just invent the illusion of something. There's no harm in that -- although you could say that fostering these illusions leads to problems -- but these are problems we are only choosing to have, or only think we are choosing to have -- and we are not really thinking to have these problems -- it's just a mistake of a bogus kind of perception.