PDA

View Full Version : Belief & Fact/Truth



Awani
10-26-2015, 01:06 PM
In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth.

:cool:

JDP
10-26-2015, 11:34 PM
In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth.

:cool:

If that was the case then you should have no problem having a very easy and wonderful life. Just believe in something real hard and watch it magically come true. If you ever find yourself facing the electric chair, try to apply this idea to see how well it works. Just believe that the electric chair will vanish into thin air before they can throw the switch. You'll see whether beliefs are really the same as reality/facts/truth.

Awani
10-27-2015, 12:41 AM
LOL!

I don't allow myself to get caught... as long as you leave the "serial" out of serial killer you'll never get caught.

Although worthy to note is the "fact" that the civilized part of the world I live in don't use electric chairs or any similar methods...


--------------------------------------------------------

But none of the above was really what this topic was trying to discuss.

Can't you see that your argument is only throwing ME [dev] into some fantasy you imagine, as if to prove something by imagining something that is not a reality/fact/truth... you are trying to prove your side of the argument by applying fiction... you are defending fact with fiction. ;)

In other words you just agreed with me (even if you are unaware).

:cool:

JDP
10-27-2015, 03:01 AM
LOL!

I don't allow myself to get caught... as long as you leave the "serial" out of serial killer you'll never get caught.

Although worthy to note is the "fact" that the civilized part of the world I live in don't use electric chairs or any similar methods...


--------------------------------------------------------

But none of the above was really what this topic was trying to discuss.

Can't you see that your argument is only throwing ME [dev] into some fantasy you imagine, as if to prove something by imagining something that is not a reality/fact/truth... you are trying to prove your side of the argument by applying fiction... you are defending fact with fiction. ;)

In other words you just agreed with me (even if you are unaware).

:cool:

No, not at all, I am defending reality vs fiction, plain and simple. The electric chair example above is just that, an example. A dramatic one where your very own life is at stake to better drive the point across. It could easily be anything more common, like you believing that those coffee stains on your rug will go away just by believing they are not really there, or believing the traffic ticket that that cop gave you yesterday will just vanish from the records, and so forth. It just ain't gonna happen. Reality doesn't care what one thinks of it. It just "is". And you must deal with it. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

zoas23
10-27-2015, 03:23 AM
I probably don't agree with you Dev... to some extent you are right... on the other hand you are wrong if you take your idea "too far".

The whole idea that the whole of reality is a belief was typical of the so called "chaos magicians" that populated the world during that strange era known as "the late 90's".

A friend of mine (who sadly died some months ago) was leading one of the most famous organizations of "chaos magicians".

The motto: "Nothing is true, everything was permitted" was very much like the unofficial slogan of the organization.

He told me a story. He was talking about the nature of reality with a "chaos magician" who was taking this idea a little bit too far... and pretending that everything is 100% a belief and that nothing is "real".

As the other person was explaining his theories, out of nowhere my friend gave him a punch in the stomach and left him with no air in the lungs and on the floor. He sat that next to him and waited till he recovered, once he recovered he asked: "Wasn't that quite real in your opinion?".

By the way: he was not a violent person... he simply wanted a "shocking" example to offer a counter-argument.

If you stand in front of a bullet that has been shot and is going directly to your head, what you "believe" does not matter much.

And yet, I also think you are right....

I like Austin Spare a lot. He invented a word, "Kia", to define the absolute.

And wrote interesting things about it:

Kia: The absolute freedom which being free is mighty enough to be "reality" and free at any time: therefore is not potential or manifest (except as it's instant possibility) by ideas of freedom or "means," but by the Ego being free to recieve it, by being free of ideas about it and by not believing. The less said of it (Kia) the less obscure is it. Remember evolution teaches by terrible punishments-that conception is ultimate reality but not ultimate freedom from evolution.

The law of Kia is its own arbiter, beyond necessitation, who can grasp the nameless Kia? Obvious but unintelligible, without form, its design most excellent. Its wish is its superabundance, who can assert its mysterious purpose? By our knowledge it becomes more obscure, more remote, and our faith-opacity. Without attribute, I know not its name. How free it is, it has no need of sovereignty! (Kingdoms are their own despoilers.) Without lineage, who dare claim relationship? Without virtue, how pleasing in its moral self-love! How mighty is it, in its assertion of "Need not be-Does not matter"! Self-love in complete perspective, serves its own invincible purpose of ecstasy. Supreme bliss simulating opposition is its balance. It suffers no hurt, neither does it labour. Is it not self-attracting and independent? Assuredly we cannot call it balance. Could we but imitate its law, all creation without command would unite and serve our purpose in pleasure and harmony. Kia transcending conception, is unchanging and inexhaustible, there is no need of illumination to see it. If we open our mouths to speak of it, it is not of it but of our duality, mighty though it be in its early simplicity! Kia without conceiving, produces its rendezvous as the fulness of creation. Without assertion the mightiest energy, without smallness it may appear the least among things. Its possession ours without asking, its being free, the only thing that is free. Without distinction, it has no favourites, but nourishes itself. In fear all creation pays homage-but does not extol its moral, so everything perishes unbeautifully. We endow ourselves with the power we concieve of it, and it acts as master, never the cause of emancipation. Thus for ever from "self" do I fashion the Kia, without likeness, but which may be regarded as the truth. From this consultation is the bondage made, not by intelligence shall we be free. The law of Kia is its ever original purpose, undetermined, without change the emanations, through our conception they materialize and are of that duality, man takes this law from this refraction, his ideas-reality. With what does he balance his ecstasy? Measure for measure by intense pain, sorrow, and miseries. With what his rebellion? Of necessity slavery! Duality is the law, realization by suffering, relates and opposes by units of time. Ecstasy for any length of time is difficult to obtain, and laboured heavily for. Various degrees of misery alternating with gusts of pleasure and emotions less anxious, would seem the condition of consciousness and existence. Duality in some form or another is consciousness as existence. It is the illusion of time, size, entity, etc.-the world's limit. The dual principle is the quintessence of all experience, no ramification has enlarged its early simplicity, but is only its repetition, modification or complexity, never is its evolution complete. It cannot go further than the experience of self-so returns and unites again and again, ever an anti-climax. For ever retrogressing to its original simplicity by infinite complication is its evolution. No man shall understand "Why" by its workings. Know it as the illusion that embraces the learning of all existence. The most aged one who grows no wiser, it may be regarded as the mother of all things. Therefore believe all experience to be illusion, and the law of duality. As space pervades an object both in and out, similarly within and beyond this ever-changing cosmos, there is this secondless principle.

I mostly love the idea that "it does not need to be" and that instead of a "belief" is the "lack of any belief".

If someone here likes Henri Bergson, it is nice to compare the ideas of Austin Spare and the ideas of Bergson.

I think you are right, but a punch in the stomach is very "real" and not too related to what we "believe".

Einstein popularized the phrase "Everything is relative"... but when the phrase arrived to the masses, it started to be used for an incredibly weird amount of subjects... So Einstein clarified that his phrase had a CONTEXT and that it didn't apply to ANY "everything" and that he was certainly not talking about, say, morals or politics.... just about some laws of physics.

Awani
10-27-2015, 10:52 AM
Reality doesn't care what one thinks of it. It just "is". And you must deal with it. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

It does care. Reality is what we make of it. You talk about getting killed, getting parking ticket, stains on the rug etc etc. All these things can be as easily created as they can be avoided. Physical examples like these are meaningless. It does not prove anything. Shit happens.

Or are you saying that a stain on the rug is truth and fact?

A stain can look cool. Can be a creative way to decorate your house. Is it a stain?

The only argument anyone can seem to muster in this thread is of physical things happening.

Look at science. Look at philosophy. Look at religion. Look at morals and ethics. Look at society.

Nothing is, IMO, fact or truth... it is all belief!

And yes a bullet coming towards my head is very real and there is little chance I can 'think' it away (but nothing is 100%). Regardless when the bullet hits my brain and my body falls to the ground it is still only a representation of an idea, a cliche of the cosmos, an act in a play... it doesn't make it true, it doesn't make it fact.

It is only an experience and the truth/belief is all mental. No matter what we think belief or fact is, both those opposites are all in the mind.

And the mind believe in this world!!!

-------------------------------------------------

I like A.O.S. As for Einstein I think the real way to say it is: everything is as relative as we want it to be...

I am not trying to change anyones mind. That is impossible. But truth is thrown around a lot in these forums, as is fact... But it is belief that rules us all!!!

Muhahaha...

:cool:

Andro
10-27-2015, 11:37 AM
So Einstein clarified that his phrase had a CONTEXT and that it didn't apply to ANY "everything" and that he was certainly not talking about, say, morals or politics.... just about some laws of physics.So it's just some 'laws of physics' that are 'relative', as opposed to 'morals', 'politics', etc, which are not relative?

Zoas, mi amigo, you managed to bring some refreshing laughter to this rather subjectively & relatively chilly Berlin morning around here :)


As for Einstein I think the real way to say it is: everything is as relative as we want it to be...Maybe the 'real' way to 'say' it is not to say it at all :)

Whether 'Fact' or 'Belief', I'd say it's all a product of Inception, leading to Perception being regarded as 'Real', etc...

As far as I'm concerned, we might all just as well be 'living' in a Yellow Submarine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vefJAtG-ZKI) - with a good dose of Strawberry Fields (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nehRB1FTeTo) :)

What I'm basically trying to say is that we may all be MindFact by design.

We are in Code-Land, after all.

And for Code/Mind to function, it HAS to completely believe its own Self-Inception of what 'Real' is, therefore making it so (in appearance and perception).

There are a quite few who manage to occasionally slip, even if only briefly, through the cracks between the pixels...

But they tend to develop this interesting tendency to remain silent once it starts happening.

Drink the Wine and Let the World be the World...

Andro
10-27-2015, 11:46 AM
Also, quoting from a book I've just finished and one that I would recommend to everyone on this Forum ('Jitterbug Perfume' by Tom Robbins):


"The Universe doesn't have laws.
It has habits.
And habits can be changed."

JDP
10-27-2015, 01:09 PM
It does care. Reality is what we make of it. You talk about getting killed, getting parking ticket, stains on the rug etc etc. All these things can be as easily created as they can be avoided. Physical examples like these are meaningless. It does not prove anything. Shit happens.

Or are you saying that a stain on the rug is truth and fact?

A stain can look cool. Can be a creative way to decorate your house. Is it a stain?

The only argument anyone can seem to muster in this thread is of physical things happening.

Look at science. Look at philosophy. Look at religion. Look at morals and ethics. Look at society.

Nothing is, IMO, fact or truth... it is all belief!

And yes a bullet coming towards my head is very real and there is little chance I can 'think' it away (but nothing is 100%). Regardless when the bullet hits my brain and my body falls to the ground it is still only a representation of an idea, a cliche of the cosmos, an act in a play... it doesn't make it true, it doesn't make it fact.

It is only an experience and the truth/belief is all mental. No matter what we think belief or fact is, both those opposites are all in the mind.

And the mind believe in this world!!!

No, it does not care, and it won't change just for you, just because you would like it to be different.

What you are telling us are purely subjective things. Ethics, religion, philosophy, society, etc. All these things vary from place to place, person to person. Physical realities, on the other hand, are the same for all. That's why they are being brought up, and will keep on being brought up in such discussions. That bullet that will kill you if it goes through your brain will also kill me, and anyone else around here whose brain it happens to go through. There is no subjectivity in this. You will die from it, so will I, and so will anybody else. Subjectivity has no place here.

The way you want to "interpret" the coffee stain is also very different from what it actually is. To you it might be "art", but to another person it might just be a tell-tale sign of carelessness or uncleanliness. But however it is being "interpreted" by different observers, the fact is that it was made by spilling some coffee on the rug. So it is a coffee stain, no matter how you want to see it. That is the physical reality, as opposed to the subjective interpretation.

If the bullet is too fast an example for you to "think it away", try something slower but just as dramatic to make sure it will drive the point across loud and clear. For example, have someone tie you down real well, so you can't escape through any physical effort, to a chair that is positioned right on top of a crate full of dynamite primed with a detonator and a timer to set it off in, say, one hour. Will that be enough time for you to concentrate hard enough and "think" the dynamite away? If not, then tell that someone to give you a couple or more hours for you to have time to do the "think it away" trick. See if it works, alters the physical reality of the situation and saves you from the imminent blast.

Awani
10-27-2015, 01:16 PM
I understand your perspective. But do you understand mine? I would not create such a situation, but even if I did, what has it to do with fact? Death is a fact? It is an experience.

Murder, bullets, bondage, electrocution, stains... very S/M.

Rough Freudian scenarios involving yours truly can be fun to entertain but not sure it makes the philosophical debate on what truth and belief really is (and if they might be one and the same) progress.

:cool:

Illen A. Cluf
10-27-2015, 02:28 PM
I think the problem here, as with almost any debate, is definition. We all argue with certain ideas/definitions in our minds, which may differ significantly from those of other people. As we all know, many words often have numerous different definitions or shades of meaning.

Until we begin to really listen to what the other person says, ask questions that clarify his or her meaning, and we begin to better define what we ourselves "mean", the debate continues on and on.

The bottom line is - there is no thing in this world that can be utterly proven without any doubt whatsoever - except man-made logical systems that are carefully defined, such as mathematics. One and one will always equal two, because that's what we have defined it to be, and which we all agree with. Other than that, we have to take someone else's word for it. For example, we all "believe" in the existence of a snow leopard, because we have seen reputable documentaries about this incredibly rare animal. Yet, most of us have never seen one. We accept their existence as a matter of fact, yet in a way, it is based on the belief that they exist, based on a number of criteria. The snow leopard documentary could have been faked, for all we know - Hollywood can do marvels with film. But we base our belief that it is factual based on the source (i.e. is the documentary supported by a reputable source, or is it just a YouTube video?).

Thus, even "facts" are based on our "belief" that it is true. Thus almost all facts are based on a type of belief in a set of standard criteria. Even these criteria are not always infallible, as we have discovered with our understanding of science. Facts are an evolving thing. Often, the more we learn, the more the fact evolves. Also like history. It changes constantly.

So, to bring this back to our study of alchemy, I find it intolerable when someone makes a dogmatic statement as though it is entirely factual, and then does not provide any source/reference for the assertion. When questioned, that person gets offended as though we are just supposed to "believe" what they say without any question, without any reference, and often without any clear definition of their process. Often too, their understanding of what constitutes the Philosophers Stone may be totally different than someone else's. Just because some process produces an unusual effect does not necessarily mean that the Philosophers Stone has been discovered, even it that product may be valuable in other respects. Thus I think we should qualify our statements more carefully and avoid dogmatic assertions as much as possible. It will help minimize misunderstandings and angry accusations.

Awani
10-27-2015, 05:35 PM
I think the problem here, as with almost any debate, is definition. We all argue with certain ideas/definitions in our minds, which may differ significantly from those of other people. As we all know, many words often have numerous different definitions or shades of meaning.

I certainly agree with this. And everything else you wrote.

Just one example: When science decide on a fact it is usually if X behaves a certain way 8 times out of 10 then that is the fact. But what about the other two times? This is a very common, IMO, mistake that science often make. They ignore discrepencies and tend to find facts that fit the theory rather than seeing if the theory fit the facts. Not all science but it happens a lot. Scientists have their career invested in certain ideas and people do not like to be wrong.

:cool:

Illen A. Cluf
10-27-2015, 06:37 PM
Just one example: When science decide on a fact it is usually if X behaves a certain way 8 times out of 10 then that is the fact. But what about the other two times? This is a very common, IMO, mistake that science often make. They ignore discrepancies and tend to find facts that fit the theory rather than seeing if the theory fit the facts. Not all science but it happens a lot. Scientists have their career invested in certain ideas and people do not like to be wrong.

:cool:

I agree. Science as defined and as practiced are often two very different things. I believe that every study ever conducted contains bias, whether intended or not. Science is supposed to be unbiased in theory, but this is a totally unobtainable quality. For example, the great majority of studies are sponsored by donors who are usually from interested commercial enterprises, who chose to sponsor only studies that have monetary benefit to them, directly or indirectly. This immediately introduces bias right from the start, as the studies themselves are not chosen randomly. Whenever you remove randomness, you automatically have bias. Thus, there are few, if any, scientific, medical, religious, psychological, social, historical, etc. studies that are not biased and thus not really "scientific" from that perspective. This is not to say that even biased studies do not result in numerous beneficial outcomes and advances. It just means that "Science" is not really "Science" - as defined.

I have long believed that our entire existence is largely controlled by statistical outcome rather than by absolute certainty. The outcome of most events have an extremely high statistical certainly, bordering on absolute, while others have somewhat lower probability. I have experienced several events that would be considered as "psychic" today, with odds of it happening so great that it was one in a number with about 35 zeroes, many billions of times greater than the chance of winning any lottery. So the event was extremely improbable, bordering on almost certain improbability, but it happened.

I think that a lot of such psychic events can be explained by probability theory. Highly unusual things do happen in our lives every day, but their "chance" of happening are so extremely low that when they do happen we often consider these events or people who experience them as somehow gifted by God. And perhaps they are - God might have rolled the dice for them :-)

But because of the extremely low probability of those events happening in the first place, they are almost certainly unique events which cannot be duplicated. Since duplication is one of the principles behind the scientific process, even though these events did occur and are "real" to the person who experienced it (and anyone who observed it), they can never be acknowledged by Science as "factual". So, unfortunately, there are many unusual events in Nature that will likely never be "discovered" and acknowledged by Science.

So, would a bullet hit my head if fired at me? I definitely wouldn't want to test the probability because it is almost 100% certain that it will. But let me give you an example of what happened to my brother a decade or so ago. I don't expect you to believe this, but it's true. He came home one day with his keys in his hand. He passed by the front door and stepped into his front hallway, which was fairly large and covered with slate. He accidentally dropped his keys and expected to hear them as they hit the slate. They never got there. They simply vanished before they reached the floor. There were no objects nearby where they could have dropped into or under, but he checked every inch of the hallway, and his clothes. He never ever found them. They simply vanished. This was likely one of those infinitesimally small probabilities when Nature did not behave as we expect it to. You don't have to believe in this story, but I'm sure that most of you have had such unusual experiences in your lives, or know of friends or family who did. I know I did many times. We often deliberately or subconsciously forget about them soon afterwards because they don't "fit" our biased sense of reality. This happened to a friend of mine who was one of two other witnesses to an unusual event all three of us experienced. The other person remembers it in vivid detail, but this friend, who was totally freaked out by the experience completely erased it from his mind only a few months later.

Awani
10-27-2015, 07:46 PM
Yes bias in science, good point.

I believe you about your brother. I have experienced similar things and friends have told of such events as well. .

In Iran they have a name for a being that borrows things and sometimes forget to put it back in time. This is why your keys sometimes goes missing and then return in the very place you already looked.

And then there are cases like when a guy jumps out of an airplane and the parachute fail and he still survive the fallThese cases when gravity fails are few. Certainly gravity is the most probable outcome but there are always anomalies.

I believe in the Sheldrake model that the laws of nature are habitual and in evolution.

"The paranormal is normal. The supernatural is natural." - Rupert Sheldrake

People who believe in ghosts tend to see ghosts, people who do not believe don't see ghosts (usually). Two conclusions.

1. The ghost believer creates the ghost with the mind
2. There are ghosts and if so the non-believer creates a world without ghosts

So in both cases the mind is the creator of reality.

:cool:

Awani
10-27-2015, 08:05 PM
I have long believed that our entire existence is largely controlled by statistical outcome rather than by absolute certainty. The outcome of most events have an extremely high statistical certainly, bordering on absolute, while others have somewhat lower probability. I have experienced several events that would be considered as "psychic" today, with odds of it happening so great that it was one in a number with about 35 zeroes, many billions of times greater than the chance of winning any lottery. So the event was extremely improbable, bordering on almost certain improbability, but it happened.


This is very common travelling. Meeting people you know on the other side of the planet by chance (it seems). Or how friends are aquired and then finding out that your friend lived where you lived as a child. Some sort of magnetic attraction that pulls certain avatars/people together.

If you google dogs a lot and then go on facebook you will experience an increase in dog related adverts. IMO the world works the same way. Thinking is googling, and your googling will manifest.

I think The Secret is a bit shitty, but the law of attraction is certainly something that works. In The Secret they try to use it for material gains but this is not the most ideal use of this force.

In any case none of what I have said is fact or truth, but I believe it and therefor it works/exist... for me.

:cool:

Awani
10-27-2015, 08:12 PM
Illen... regarding science you might like this thread, very good talk about the problems with science:

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4253-The-Science-Delusion

:cool:

zoas23
10-27-2015, 09:15 PM
So it's just some 'laws of physics' that are 'relative', as opposed to 'morals', 'politics', etc, which are not relative?

I think he mostly stated that his phrase was being taken out of context and that silly things were said about it (you know, as if someone quoted Newton's law of gravity to justify that a government will fall... due to the law of gravity).



Zoas, mi amigo, you managed to bring some refreshing laughter to this rather subjectively & relatively chilly Berlin morning around here :)



Nice to make you laugh! ;)

I still wanna talk to talk to you about some issues, we'll find the proper time.

Going back to what you wrote...

A PERFECT example would be the OLD Gnostics... who believed in a Transcendental God... but also in a Demiurge and Archons...

The Demiurge and the Archos were the "illusion" that had to be transcended... they were not the ultimate reality, but the illusion.

... but they never claimed that the illusion was "not real" or that ignoring it would simply make it go away.

Then again, the Gnostics were using metaphors to explain the same thing we are discussing... a "theological disguise" for this same issue.

That's why I agree and disagree.

Awani
10-27-2015, 09:30 PM
... but they never claimed that the illusion was "not real" or that ignoring it would simply make it go away.


This is a good moment to inject my own little slogan: the illusion is real

:cool:

zoas23
10-27-2015, 10:19 PM
This is a good moment to inject my own little slogan: the illusion is real

:cool:

Dev....
GET THIS BOOK:

http://www.amazon.com/Matter-Memory-Henri-Bergson/dp/1891396773

Take my word as a "fact"... this one shall become your "bible".

Awani
10-27-2015, 10:26 PM
Cool. I know the author... but have not read this one. Shit my "to read pile" is growing faster than I can read it down...

:cool:

Illen A. Cluf
10-27-2015, 11:22 PM
Illen... regarding science you might like this thread, very good talk about the problems with science:

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4253-The-Science-Delusion

:cool:

Very interesting lectures from Sheldrake and McKenna! I listened to both of them. It touches on some of the issues addressed above, especially dogma! I wonder if the second half of Sheldrake's lecture is available somewhere?

Awani
10-28-2015, 05:38 AM
It touches on some of the issues addressed above, especially dogma! I wonder if the second half of Sheldrake's lecture is available somewhere?

Can't seem to find it, but found this (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4253-The-Science-Delusion&p=39519#post39519) (if you enjoy Tom Campbell talking Sheldrake)... otherwise guess you have to buy his book. ;)

:cool:

JDP
10-28-2015, 06:06 AM
I understand your perspective. But do you understand mine? I would not create such a situation, but even if I did, what has it to do with fact? Death is a fact? It is an experience.

Murder, bullets, bondage, electrocution, stains... very S/M.

Rough Freudian scenarios involving yours truly can be fun to entertain but not sure it makes the philosophical debate on what truth and belief really is (and if they might be one and the same) progress.

:cool:

Your perspective appears to be to simply put question marks on everything as if it was too difficult to separate facts from fiction.

Has it occurred to you that the fact that everyone else, including animals, plants, and generally even inanimate objects, all experience the exact same physical realities pretty much puts the final nail in the coffin of such "New Age" ideas? Keeping with one of the above examples, what a "coincidence" that bullets are equally real for everyone. If everything was so "relative" and subject to change according to each one's perception or "interpretation" there would be no such single reality for everyone, instead we would find a very puzzling variety of "facts" or "realities" for each one of us, shaped and modeled after each one's whim & fancy. So while a bullet shot at your dog will kill him, a bullet shot at you would amazingly do nothing to you. Your dog's "perception" of the event did not prevent his death, while your "perception" of it resulted in the bullet not causing the same outcome. Like I said in another thread, this kind of stuff belongs in episodes of The Twilight Zone, not reality. Reality is the same for everyone. The fact is that both you and your dog will end up going through the exact same outcome: death caused by massive trauma from the bullet. This is the cold, hard fact that will be the same for everyone who gets a bullet go through his brains. Bullets don't care how you "perceive" them. They will do what they do no matter what you think of them.

Whether you create those experiences or someone else does is besides the point. The fact is that if you ever found yourself in such situations no amount of wishful thinking will alter them. You better start looking for a more realistic way of getting out of them or you will "experience" the fact of death.

JDP
10-28-2015, 06:29 AM
I think the problem here, as with almost any debate, is definition. We all argue with certain ideas/definitions in our minds, which may differ significantly from those of other people. As we all know, many words often have numerous different definitions or shades of meaning.

Until we begin to really listen to what the other person says, ask questions that clarify his or her meaning, and we begin to better define what we ourselves "mean", the debate continues on and on.

The bottom line is - there is no thing in this world that can be utterly proven without any doubt whatsoever - except man-made logical systems that are carefully defined, such as mathematics. One and one will always equal two, because that's what we have defined it to be, and which we all agree with. Other than that, we have to take someone else's word for it. For example, we all "believe" in the existence of a snow leopard, because we have seen reputable documentaries about this incredibly rare animal. Yet, most of us have never seen one. We accept their existence as a matter of fact, yet in a way, it is based on the belief that they exist, based on a number of criteria. The snow leopard documentary could have been faked, for all we know - Hollywood can do marvels with film. But we base our belief that it is factual based on the source (i.e. is the documentary supported by a reputable source, or is it just a YouTube video?).

Thus, even "facts" are based on our "belief" that it is true. Thus almost all facts are based on a type of belief in a set of standard criteria. Even these criteria are not always infallible, as we have discovered with our understanding of science. Facts are an evolving thing. Often, the more we learn, the more the fact evolves. Also like history. It changes constantly.

So, to bring this back to our study of alchemy, I find it intolerable when someone makes a dogmatic statement as though it is entirely factual, and then does not provide any source/reference for the assertion. When questioned, that person gets offended as though we are just supposed to "believe" what they say without any question, without any reference, and often without any clear definition of their process. Often too, their understanding of what constitutes the Philosophers Stone may be totally different than someone else's. Just because some process produces an unusual effect does not necessarily mean that the Philosophers Stone has been discovered, even it that product may be valuable in other respects. Thus I think we should qualify our statements more carefully and avoid dogmatic assertions as much as possible. It will help minimize misunderstandings and angry accusations.

The problem with the documentary example is that it would require a humongous collaborative effort to keep it going, too much to be realistically carried out. And for what purpose? Even more intricate conspiracy theories, like the Moon-landing deniers, fail to account for the huge effort that would require to keep such a charade going without being exposed. Not even politicians in the same party can collaborate well enough among themselves to keep their "dirty laundry" from the public forever, let alone a lie that would require millions of people around the world all in cahoots with each other. Conspiracy theorists all fail to take into account such basic flaws which are part of human nature. There is an old saying: "If you want to keep a secret, never tell anyone." In other words, the least people who know it, the better and easier it will be to continue keeping it a secret.

JDP
10-28-2015, 06:51 AM
Yes bias in science, good point.

I believe you about your brother. I have experienced similar things and friends have told of such events as well. .

In Iran they have a name for a being that borrows things and sometimes forget to put it back in time. This is why your keys sometimes goes missing and then return in the very place you already looked.

And then there are cases like when a guy jumps out of an airplane and the parachute fail and he still survive the fallThese cases when gravity fails are few. Certainly gravity is the most probable outcome but there are always anomalies.

I believe in the Sheldrake model that the laws of nature are habitual and in evolution.

"The paranormal is normal. The supernatural is natural." - Rupert Sheldrake

People who believe in ghosts tend to see ghosts, people who do not believe don't see ghosts (usually). Two conclusions.

1. The ghost believer creates the ghost with the mind
2. There are ghosts and if so the non-believer creates a world without ghosts

So in both cases the mind is the creator of reality.

:cool:

People who survive falls from planes without a parachute are very scarce, and the "miracle" of why they survived can usually be explained by more mundane physical ways. Probably the most famous example of such a survivor:

http://www.303rdbg.com/magee.html

The glass roof of the station saved this guy from almost certain death.

Once again, if people see ghosts simply because they believe in them, if they "create them with their minds", then why is it that they can never conjure them up when they want to? Here are two much more realistic conclusions:

1. The ghost believer thought he saw a ghost when in reality it was something else

2. The non-believers and believers can't alter reality with their minds, so if ghosts really exist the non-believers can do jack-squat about it, they can complain all they want and pull their hair until they go bald, but the ghosts will continue on existing all the same, while on the other side of the coin, if ghosts don't exist then the believers can continue believing in them all they want but it will not alter the fact that they will not become any more real than vampires, zombies or the tooth-fairy

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2015, 01:56 PM
The problem with the documentary example is that it would require a humongous collaborative effort to keep it going, too much to be realistically carried out. And for what purpose? Even more intricate conspiracy theories, like the Moon-landing deniers, fail to account for the huge effort that would require to keep such a charade going without being exposed. Not even politicians in the same party can collaborate well enough among themselves to keep their "dirty laundry" from the public forever, let alone a lie that would require millions of people around the world all in cahoots with each other. Conspiracy theorists all fail to take into account such basic flaws which are part of human nature. There is an old saying: "If you want to keep a secret, never tell anyone." In other words, the least people who know it, the better and easier it will be to continue keeping it a secret.

I couldn't agree more - just look at Plato's and Aristotle's writings - people are still debating their thoughts today.

As for conspiracy theories, I agree that the more that know about it, the greater the chance of it leaking. However, there are examples of secrets known by many in such institutions as the military, but who are sworn to secrecy, and the secret often not coming out until decades later, when the participant is on his death bed and feels regret or the need to let the public know. So, yes, I do believe that secrets can be kept by many people for extended periods of time. It is also a fact that many people who have had secrets were threatened by death or harm to their loved ones if they spilled the beans. That's more than enough incentive to prevent most people from revealing secrets. There are many other effective ways of preventing secrets from being revealed such as planting evidence on the person in an attempt to destroy their credibility, threatening to blackmail them to their spouses regarding extra-marital affairs, etc. There are too many examples of witnesses in witness protection programs to prove that being threatened by death if the witness testifies is not a conspiracy theory.

Even when reliable people do speak out the truth about so-called "conspiracies", they are often highly ridiculed and/or ignored, or so much other fake "evidence" can be generated that the public becomes confused about who is, and who is not telling the truth. There are numerous ways of deliberately burying or confusing the truth with fake testimonials or reports or other means, even when it does come out. Just look at the JFK assassination "conspiracy" for example. It's only the unchanging "official" reports that allows gullible anti-conspirators to continue labeling it a "conspiracy". It's always easy to hide under a government-sponsored label, and pretend that it is infallible, even if people within the government had great motive to falsify, hide or distort evidence. Assuming that the Government tells the truth and is totally infallible is a huge mistake that results in numerous truths never seeing the light of day. One only has to look at public records over the decades to determine how often Government spokespersons at the highest levels have lied outright, twisted the truth, destroyed public records, threatened witnesses, falsified evidence, bribed judges, stacked "independent" investigation panels with biased members, etc.

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2015, 02:37 PM
Can't seem to find it, but found this (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4253-The-Science-Delusion&p=39519#post39519) (if you enjoy Tom Campbell talking Sheldrake)... otherwise guess you have to buy his book. ;)

:cool:

Thanks, Dev. I may have to purchase his book or find it in a library. Thanks also for the link - quite long though.

Awani
10-28-2015, 06:44 PM
Your perspective appears to be to simply put question marks on everything as if it was too difficult to separate facts from fiction.

It is?

Fact = Fiction = Fact

It has always been like that.

"The world is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine." - J. B. S. Haldane

"It's important to abolish the unconscious dogmatism that makes people think their way of looking at reality is the only sane way of viewing the world. My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything." - Robert Anton Wilson


The non-believers and believers can't alter reality with their minds...

One thing I have learned is that if the mind thinks it cannot do something... it can't (and vice versa). This is the core programing of the system. If you think you are becoming sick, you will be sick... if you feel you are becoming sick and refuse you will not be sick. Any system operates with commands... so what commands are we giving our own system?


Reality is the same for everyone.

I think we just have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to try and convince you of anything, or be conviced by your material arguments. Based on personal experience I know for a fact - which has formed my belief - that reality is certainly not the same for everyone.

I don't think blanket statements is good science... alas that is excatly what science does all the time.

You mean that the reality of gravity or a bullet is the same for everyone... but neither gravity or a bullet has anything to do with reality. The experience of working in a bakery for a summer has little to do with the recepie of the cakes being baked. In some way it might, but it won't be the core experience. I don't think there is a point for us to continue because I think the problem in our disagreement is not that fact is belief or not...

...it is our perception of reality. And based on what you have written our experience of reality are so far apart that it will be very difficult to share some common ground. I know it might sound arrogant to say so but it is true: I understand your arguments fully because I used to agree with them 100 %, I just don't anymore.

Not saying you are wrong and I have moved forward into a more correct way of thinking. But I am saying that you are still in "that" reality and I am in "this" reality (neither necessarily above the other). And although they might see and touch, they will never be the same reality. No more than you'll find a Mormon praying in a Mosque.

Your belief is too different than mine.

Because that is all you have presented. Not fact. Not truth. Belief. I have at least. That is all I can do.

IMHO.

:cool:

JDP
10-28-2015, 10:42 PM
It is?

Fact = Fiction = Fact

It has always been like that.

No, because if that was true you could simply go around constructing your very own private "realities" different from everyone else's. But how is that going to stop you being subject to the exact same physical facts/realities as others? You are still going to be pulled down by gravity, bullets are still going to kill you, coffee will still stain your rug, earthquakes will still affect your house, etc. The subjective "reality" you create inside your mind will be totally ineffective in changing the objective reality we all experience.


One thing I have learned is that if the mind thinks it cannot do something... it can't (and vice versa). This is the core programing of the system. If you think you are becoming sick, you will be sick... if you feel you are becoming sick and refuse you will not be sick. Any system operates with commands... so what commands are we giving our own system?

If that was really true then people who thought something was not real or was impossible would never find out otherwise. Yet we see this is not the case at all. Example: the people who scorned those who throughout history attempted to build a device or machine that enabled man to fly had to finally eat their words and accept the fact that it can be done. Today no one in their right mind denies that man-made flying contraptions are very much real. Of course, you still need to provide actual evidence for any given mind to be convinced of things it otherwise will deny, whether it be for lack of evidence or because a given subject seems very improbable. And this leads us to the crucial topic of establishing FACTS, the one thing you keep trying to put question marks on.


I think we just have to agree to disagree. I see no reason to try and convince you of anything, or be conviced by your material arguments. Based on personal experience I know for a fact - which has formed my belief - that reality is certainly not the same for everyone.

I don't think blanket statements is good science... alas that is excatly what science does all the time.

You mean that the reality of gravity or a bullet is the same for everyone... but neither gravity or a bullet has anything to do with reality. The experience of working in a bakery for a summer has little to do with the recepie of the cakes being baked. In some way it might, but it won't be the core experience. I don't think there is a point for us to continue because I think the problem in our disagreement is not that fact is belief or not...

...it is our perception of reality. And based on what you have written our experience of reality are so far apart that it will be very difficult to share some common ground. I know it might sound arrogant to say so but it is true: I understand your arguments fully because I used to agree with them 100 %, I just don't anymore.

Not saying you are wrong and I have moved forward into a more correct way of thinking. But I am saying that you are still in "that" reality and I am in "this" reality. And although they might see and touch, they will never be the same reality. No more than you'll find a Mormon praying in a Mosque.

Your belief is too different than mine.

Because that is all you have presented. Not fact. Not truth. Belief!

IMHO.

:cool:

Subjective belief is totally ineffective for altering objective facts. Believing you can float around defying gravity is just not gonna work just because you would like it to be so. Maybe for the delusional fellow who thinks he can do such a thing it will appear to be "real", but to the rest of the observers outside of his delusional fantasy world it will plainly be quite different than he imagines and he will obviously not be floating around. Can you imagine how chaotic this world would be if what you propose was the case? Everyone would be altering reality at their whim & fancy. We would live in an insane world where nothing would make any sense, nothing would be predictable, common sense and logic would not exist, experience would be basically worthless. For example, throwing a stone at your neighbor's window might end up going through the glass without breaking it, simply because the stone-thrower believes this is the way it should be, yet that same stone being thrown at the same window by another observer with a totally different belief regarding the outcome of such an action would shatter the glass. Since this is obviously NOT how things happen, you can rest assured that actual reality dictates that the outcome will be the same for all observers; in this case: the glass will break. No amount of believing that the stone will get through without breaking the glass is going to make it happen. Sorry. This is just the way it is. If you don't believe me, then start grabbing stones and throwing them at your windows. Just convince yourself that the stones will get through without damaging the glass. Let's see if reality is going to be altered because of your beliefs.

Awani
10-28-2015, 11:02 PM
You keep using violent examples as proof of "reality" for some reason. It doesn't make the evidence stronger. Quite the opposite. I do not think I am explaining myself well...

There is nothing real. Everything is real. The illusion is real. But it is still an illusion.


We would live in an insane world where nothing would make any sense...

We already do.

-------------------------

Once the Oculus Rift (https://www.oculus.com/en-us/) revolution takes over you will see what I mean (it's starting next year).

I highly recommend the Otherland series. It's four books, quite long but excellent... it is fiction describing the reality that awaits. Some see it as a nightmare... others embrace it.

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/taddy_zpseeg6gkwa.jpg
The story is set on Earth near the end of the 21st century in a world in which technology has advanced somewhat beyond the present. The most notable advancement is the widespread availability of full-immersion virtual reality installations, which allow people from all walks of life to access an online world, called simply the Net. Tad Williams weaves an intricate plot spanning four thick volumes and creates a picture of a future society where virtual worlds are fully integrated into everyday life.

I embrace it!


PS: I cannot believe I have forgot to recommend these books... they came out at the end of the last century (and that's when I read them)... only now doing this post do I realize how prophetic they were.

Spin-off thread: Otherland (the Rift is coming) (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4540-Otherland-(the-Rift-is-coming))

:cool:

JDP
10-29-2015, 04:22 AM
You keep using violent examples as proof of "reality" for some reason. It doesn't make the evidence stronger. Quite the opposite. I do not think I am explaining myself well...

Because they are dramatic and thus drive the point across very well. They are also funny because the people claiming such strange things never would attempt to put them to the test in such a manner since they know very well that in reality they would end up hurting themselves or their pockets. Curious how the New Age gurus stop believing this weird stuff and stop seeing blurry lines when it comes to what reality is as soon as personal safety is involved. It seems that when you are gambling with your life, health or economics reality kicks in and you no longer entertain bizarre notions.


There is nothing real. Everything is real. The illusion is real. But it is still an illusion.

There is reality and there is fiction. The illusion goes on in your head and nobody else's head. Reality happens outside the head, it happens for everyone and it is the same for you as it is for me. It is very democratic and it makes no exceptions.


We already do.

Maybe you do.

Awani
10-29-2015, 01:58 PM
"...the phenomenal world does not exist; it is a hypostasis of the information processed by the Mind." - Philip K. Dick

:cool:

JDP
10-29-2015, 11:20 PM
"...the phenomenal world does not exist; it is a hypostasis of the information processed by the Mind." - Philip K. Dick

:cool:

If that was true then we should expect that very different beings from us, but who also process that information in their own minds, would not be subject to the same phenomenal world. Yet we can plainly see that is not the case. The way a cat's mind, for example, processes that information does not prevent him one bit from being subject to the pull of gravity, just like everything else in the universe. And you certainly can't accuse a cat or a dog of having some sort of "bias", preconceived notions or what have you. Their mentality is different from ours, and so is their interpretation of the world. Yet they are subject to the exact same physical facts. So yes, the phenomenal world does indeed exist, and it is the same for everyone. It is very democratic, and it makes no exceptions. It does not care what you think of it, and it won't change because of how you choose to interpret it.

Andro
10-30-2015, 09:00 AM
Some interesting concepts in the video on This Page (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7c6_1433057642).

Awani
10-31-2015, 12:16 AM
Some interesting concepts in the video on This Page (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7c6_1433057642).

I recommend people watch the whole film instead... it's called Waking Life.

:cool:

Awani
11-17-2015, 11:50 PM
“Only psychos and shamans create their own reality”
― Terence McKenna

:cool:

Awani
12-19-2015, 03:07 PM
I don't believe. I experience. I do not know. I know that I don't. I trust my experience, but I am open to the opposite. I have faith that I do not need faith. God is as real as God is unreal. Fact is proof of a relative perception. Belief is an expression of the same. You can play the rules according to the game, or play the game according to the rules.

Regardless you never leave school.

:cool:

Andro
12-19-2015, 06:31 PM
you never leave school.

Until you do :)

Quoth Justin Bieber (private joke):


"I will never say never"

:cool:

Awani
12-19-2015, 07:57 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oo8QzDHimQ

:cool:

Ghislain
12-20-2015, 10:51 AM
Amazing thread...I was wondering how I missed it...just realised I was away :(

Anyhow...here is my two penneths worth.



Even more intricate conspiracy theories, like the Moon-landing deniers, fail to account for the huge effort that would require to keep such a charade going without being exposed...(how it can be done) the least people who know it, the better and easier it will be to continue keeping it a secret.

You only need a few people to fabricate a scenario for the masses to believe it as fact.

I am not saying if this is fact or fiction but in the example above you could...

• Send up a fake rocket and once out of sight simulate its trajectory on the screens of everyone who needs to see it...this would only take one clever programmer.

• Fake the astronauts films...wouldn’t be hard to find a few willing participants or use hypnosis to make them believe they actually did it.

• Drop a capsule from an aircraft and send out a fleet to pick it up.

Might be a bit more to it than that, but it wouldn’t take many people to do it...and keep in mind that everyone wants to believe it. Remember only a few people paid for the world wars and everyone thought that was real and many gave up their lives for it.

9/11? How many actual witnesses to the planes hitting the buildings? But we have all seen THE film lol...there would be hundreds of films in an area of such importance.

Peaceful protests of thousands of people...that’s embarrassing...send in half a dozen people to throw a few bricks...let the police move in on the crowd because of this violent act and hey presto, a riot...the peaceful protestors lose all credibility in the eyes of the public. They were all peaceful, but how easily they can be made to look like a violent mob...violent mob...peaceful protestors...what were the facts?

Money lol...print something on a bit of paper, get everyone to agree it is worth some value, hey presto, control of the masses.

It is not whether something is fact or fiction, it is the rules of the belief.

A good example is the cursor on your computer screen...put it on the left side of your screen and try and push it through the side...you can’t the edge of the screen is solid; as far as your computer is concerned, but with a few changes to the code it can go through the edge and come back on the right side of the screen.

The boundaries are written in code, and only a few know how to write it...the rest of the masses have to accept the cursor stops at the edge of the screen...”that’s a fact”, but it’s not! There isn’t even a cursor, just a moving picture turned on or off in pixels according to the rules.



http://thealchemyforum.com/Images/cursor%20rule

JDP, you set a problem of thinking away a bullet to the head; with confidence that can’t be done.

Perhaps it can, but can you imagine how advanced a person’s mind would have to be from ours to perform such a feat. Would they ever need to prove it to us; it would be like us trying to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity to an ant.

Magicians do these sorts of tricks, but are they all using illusion and trickery or are some actually manipulating perceived reality; and making a lot of money to boot? ;)

You can’t ask a novice to do something that may take a lot of skill; think away a bullet...fight a raging bull...I can’t do the latter either and I would be a fool to try...but I know a man who can.

If we look at many of the scientific theories then matter doesn’t even exist so we are not here and everything is illusion.


Perhaps ;)

Ghislain

JDP
12-20-2015, 01:14 PM
Amazing thread...I was wondering how I missed it...just realised I was away :(

Anyhow...here is my two penneths worth.




You only need a few people to fabricate a scenario for the masses to believe it as fact.

I am not saying if this is fact or fiction but in the example above you could...

• Send up a fake rocket and once out of sight simulate its trajectory on the screens of everyone who needs to see it...this would only take one clever programmer.

• Fake the astronauts films...wouldn’t be hard to find a few willing participants or use hypnosis to make them believe they actually did it.

• Drop a capsule from an aircraft and send out a fleet to pick it up.

Might be a bit more to it than that, but it wouldn’t take many people to do it...and keep in mind that everyone wants to believe it.

Actually it would require a whole bunch of people to try to pull such a stunt, even today, let alone in 1969. There's just no way that such a huge hoax could remain secret for any long period of time with so many people in on it.



9/11? How many actual witnesses to the planes hitting the buildings? But we have all seen THE film lol...there would be hundreds of films in an area of such importance.

How about the fact that there is a big hole and a pile of rubbish where the buildings were, the fact that thousands died (including all the people in the planes that were used as Kamikazes), and the fact that dozens of witnesses saw what happened. That pretty much leaves little doubt that it did happen.



A good example is the cursor on your computer screen...put it on the left side of your screen and try and push it through the side...you can’t the edge of the screen is solid; as far as your computer is concerned, but with a few changes to the code it can go through the edge and come back on the right side of the screen.

The boundaries are written in code, and only a few know how to write it...the rest of the masses have to accept the cursor stops at the edge of the screen...”that’s a fact”, but it’s not! There isn’t even a cursor, just a moving picture turned on or off in pixels according to the rules.

The computer world is an imaginary one. Ours isn't. Try to run through a brick wall all you want, and you will see that no matter how much you try to "change the code" with whatever Hocus Pocus the only result will be you slamming yourself against it and hurting yourself pretty bad each time you attempt to try the "reprogramming of reality" bit.



http://thealchemyforum.com/Images/cursor%20rule

JDP, you set a problem of thinking away a bullet to the head; with confidence that can’t be done.

Perhaps it can, but can you imagine how advanced a person’s mind would have to be from ours to perform such a feat. Would they ever need to prove it to us; it would be like us trying to prove Einstein’s theory of relativity to an ant.

Why? Because of the speed of the bullet? No problem. We'll slow it down so the "wish it away and it will happen" believers can have plenty of time to concentrate. The bullet is securely attached to a hydraulic press, like the ones used to crush cars in junkyards, and very slowly but surely made to follow a path to the also securely placed head of the subject doing the miraculous reality altering feat. The press is set to very slowly do this, so the subject can have as many hours as he wishes to somehow stop the tragedy from happening only by using his mind. My money says he won't be able to, no matter how much he wishes for the whole thing to stop before it reaches his head. I am 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % sure.


Magicians do these sorts of tricks, but are they all using illusion and trickery or are some actually manipulating perceived reality; and making a lot of money to boot? ;

Magicians do not just use "sort of tricks", they use tricks, period. If you think they can do such things as stopping bullets with their mouths you can test it very easily by shooting one with a real gun with real bullets (as with the previous example, sarcastic hypothetical scenario fully intended here: DO NOT actually attempt such a thing, because you will surely end up killing the poor would-be Houdini and end up in jail.)

Awani
12-20-2015, 03:34 PM
The boundaries are written in code, and only a few know how to write it...the rest of the masses have to accept the cursor stops at the edge of the screen...”that’s a fact”, but it’s not! There isn’t even a cursor, just a moving picture turned on or off in pixels according to the rules.

Exactly.

:cool:

Ghislain
12-20-2015, 06:45 PM
Actually it would require a whole bunch of people to try to pull such a stunt, even today, let alone in 1969. There's just no way that such a huge hoax could remain secret for any long period of time with so many people in on it.

Like in the JFK assassination by ???Lee Harvey Oswald??? the lone gunman?

Like the WMD's in Iraq?

Like no aircraft wreckage at the pentagon and again no film of the impact even though it is a top security building?



The computer world is an imaginary one. Ours isn't.

I have to disagree, they are one and the same; our world is just a far more advanced one, but that is changing.




Magicians do not just use "sort of tricks", they use tricks, period.

and you know that because? Because it is what you assume with the given information you have.

Hicks puts it so succinctly...I guess this clip has been flogged to death, but that is because it holds the comic truth of what is...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgzQuE1pR1w

Ghislain

Ghislain
12-20-2015, 07:14 PM
I can't stop a bullet with my mind, for that matter I can't stop a football perfectly passed to me.

I can't walk through walls, but that doesn't make me exclude every other person in the seven billion from being able to do so.

Ghislain

Ghislain
12-20-2015, 07:24 PM
I started a thread that I didn't expect anyone to read, because it is long, because it is boring, because it takes a person out of their comfort zone.

The answer to a question you may never ask (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3802-The-answer-to-a-question-you-may-never-ask)

It is basically how a letter appears on your computer screen when you tap the keyboard.

And we just take it for granted that it will :)

That's life...no need to know what is going on...it just does.

Ghislain

JDP
12-21-2015, 04:19 PM
I can't stop a bullet with my mind, for that matter I can't stop a football perfectly passed to me.

I can't walk through walls, but that doesn't make me exclude every other person in the seven billion from being able to do so.

Ghislain

You don't have to meet every single one of them to simply deduce how out of touch with reality such things are. Just by looking at average examples from daily life, which has been going on for the past thousands of years, people know that you can't stop flying things shot in your direction or go through walls simply because you wish so.

JDP
12-21-2015, 04:36 PM
Like no aircraft wreckage at the pentagon and again no film of the impact even though it is a top security building?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/


I have to disagree, they are one and the same; our world is just a far more advanced one, but that is changing.

That still does not prove that is "imaginary" just like the virtual world of a computer.


and you know that because? Because it is what you assume with the given information you have.


Have you seen shows by Penn & Teller? How about those "Masked Magician" (i.e. Val Valentino) TV specials? You should. It is all tricks.

Also, this gentleman here for a whole bunch of years offered $1 million to anyone who could show any weird "paranormal" claims under controlled conditions:

http://web.randi.org/home/jref-status

Needless to say, no one was able to pull it off, and not for lack of trying, mind you. You see, the old man happens to be a professional magician himself and there's no way that anyone is gonna pull a fast one on him. He knows all the tricks of the trade.

Note: Randi & company plan on continuing the $1 million challenge next year, but under more strict conditions for applicants since they got tired of having to deal with a ton of weirdos who would never perform what they claimed and simply wasted their time.

Dendritic Xylem
12-21-2015, 10:57 PM
JDP, I agree that the conspiracy theories surrounding 911 have gotten out of hand.
I don't believe the planes were holograms.

But the gov't says that building 7 free-fell in on itself because of a fire...lol

Any demolition expert or engineer with half a brain knows that it takes VERY carefully timed explosions to get a building that size to free-fall perfectly into its structural foundation.

Thousands of architects and engineers have formed a movement demanding a closer look at the evidence...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

Ghislain
12-22-2015, 02:25 AM
Below is a video I already posted in another thread here...Conspiracy Theories (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4509-Conspiracy-Theories)

I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion on conspiracies, but belief and fact or truth go hand in hand with deception.

The video is over three hours long, keep an open mind and give it a look.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Qt6a-vaNM

It is a big ask to get people to see how major catastrophic events may be orchestrated by just a few, but when you look at how much control those few have within the major circles of such things as media, commerce, banking, law and politics it becomes apparent that something is amiss.

Now one has to ask why would anyone orchestrate such monstrous events such as 9/11. To answer this you have to follow the money.

Check out the Bretton Woods System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system#U.S._balance_of_payments_cris is), whereby the USA put itself into a position to print as much money as it liked, but was totally reliant on middle east oil producing countries to only deal in the US dollar (see Petrodollar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar)).

Once you understand that the USA is broke and its finances are artificially bolstered by the Petrodollar you can see that if the Petrodollar failed the American economy would collapse and along with it many other nation's economy linked to the US dollar and thus the importance of events like...

Saddam Hussein moving Iraqi oil sales to the Euro...9/11 used as excuse to invade...first change made was to return Iraqui oil sales to US dollar.

Muammar Gaddafi moving Libyan oil sales to the Gold Dinar...fabricated human rights issues used as an excuse to invade...Lybian oil transactions remain in US dollars.

Bashar al-Assad refusing to allow the Qatar-Turkey pipeline (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline) through Syria...fabricated Arab Spring, still ongoing to remove Assad and put in place someone friendly to the pipeline proposal...note Assad deals with Russia on natural gas.

See also, The Real Reason for the Afghan War (http://whowhatwhy.org/2012/09/10/the-real-reason-for-the-afghan-war/)

The list goes on and on and the public soak up the lies as fact. You have to do a lot of reading to understand the web of deceit that goes on in all walks of life and the general public won't do that. If you don't go along with the lies you are hailed as a conspiracy theorist or un-patriotic. The lies are so convincing that we support sending our children to die in support of these lies...not to mention the millions our children kill or disenfranchise.

On the substance of matter...what is it?

Watch Brian Cox's video below to see how much we don't know. Just the information we do know is amazing...note Brian Cox is simplifying the information for a public broadcast.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYWp3Y4HE-g

It has been stated in science that an atom consists of 99.99999% empty space...I would take that further and say it is 100% empty space as it isn't really there.

If you look at the quantum world and string theory then everything is just a vibration of energy and thus walking through a wall could be a possibility, but one would need to understand how to move one vibrating field through another without disrupting the first.

This is just an hypothesis, and I can never say something is a fact or truth as I don't nor will I ever have all the relevant details and no one ever will so everything we talk of here will be subjective.

Ghislain

zoas23
12-22-2015, 07:22 AM
The boundaries are written in code, and only a few know how to write it...the rest of the masses have to accept the cursor stops at the edge of the screen...”that’s a fact”, but it’s not! There isn’t even a cursor, just a moving picture turned on or off in pixels according to the rules.

Taking Ghislain's idea completely out of context and to an area that Ghislain probably doesn't like:

It is true that history shows that SOME conspiracy theories have existed...
But I truly believe that the FACTS are often VERY simple, but also very hard to accept... so we create a lot of "defense mechanisms" to avoid the simple facts and avoid having to deal with them.

It is too easy to state that the world is controlled by an elite of lizards from outter space that include the Queen of England, George Bush and the owners of some banks... I am willingly using one of the most "eccentric" conspiracy theories.

It is harder to accept that 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth of the world... and that such thing does not happen because they are extraterrestrial illuminati lizards with super powers... but because there is a large mass of people who are mostly fine with it. You know, they don't like that fact... but they have a more or less decent cell phone, a house where they live, a TV, a computer and the internet... they are not part of this 1%, but they have some "toys" and they are afraid of losing those toys; they actually give a sense of security... So they accept that the world isn't "fair", but they don't want to lose the little they have.

I often think that the FACTS are VERY easy to perceive, we all know them... but we prefer to ignore them.

It would be absurd to state that ALL the conspiracy theories are false... but I do believe that MOST of them are simply the result of our need to ignore the harsh facts which are so easy to see as they are.

3 weeks ago a homeless man who was completely drunk was hit by a car... he was agonizing. My girlfriend and I stopped and asked him what had happened, he told us that he got his by a car and showed us his injuries. We called an ambulance, which took some 60 minutes to arrive (probably because we were not too clever and we mentioned that the victim was a homeless man who was drunk.... so he didn't became a priority).
But the strange fact is that a LOT of persons decided to look away...
Whilst several other persons talked to my girlfriend and I and told us: "What are you doing next to that man???? He's simply drunk and probably fell to the floor because he's drunk, just leave him there and ignore him... he's just pretending that something happened to him to make you pay attention to him, walk away".

No other person in those 60 minutes asked if he was fine, no other person believed that he had been hit by a car, no other person wanted to deal with the fact that he could die.

Only my girlfriend and I sat next to him holding his hand and spent the whole time talking to him to prevent him from falling asleep.

The other 99.99% of the persons... well, it was easier or more comfortable to "believe" that the OBVIOUS and VISIBLE fact was not "the truth". They even wanted to convince my girlfriend and I that the "truth" was "false". Why? Because it is easier to pretend that we live in a world where this homeless person doesn't even exist... it is easier not to stop and hold his hand... it is easier for most people to pretend that the fact that he was agonizing and nobody gave a shit about it was not what was really going on.

I'm sorry to say it, but I think that most "conspiracy theories" work exactly like that:
There's a homeless man who may die if nobody helps him... But it is easier to pretend that he's not actually agonizing, that he's simply faking it, that it's pointless to stop and help... and that it is better to go on with our lives, return home and watch a soap opera on the TV that shows a reality where this homeless man is not there.

That's why I do not like conspiracy theories.

Ghislain
12-22-2015, 11:50 AM
It is a shame, but this thread does seem to be heading down the conspiracy rabbit hole...and that's a fact ;)




It is harder to accept that 1% of the population owns 99% of the wealth of the world... and that such thing does not happen because they are extraterrestrial illuminati lizards with super powers... but because there is a large mass of people who are mostly fine with it. You know, they don't like that fact... but they have a more or less decent cell phone, a house where they live, a TV, a computer and the internet... they are not part of this 1%, but they have some "toys" and they are afraid of losing those toys; they actually give a sense of security... So they accept that the world isn't "fair", but they don't want to lose the little they have.

Do you mean like the hamster in a cage with all the toys? Life is for living, not for serving some quango's desires...oh look aren't they cute working away then sleeping then working away then sleeping then working aw..., but they do have their toys bless them...the French didn't put up with it nor did the Russians and nor should we; unfortunately both of them got re-infested...IMHO



I often think that the FACTS are VERY easy to perceive, we all know them... but we prefer to ignore them.

Ignore, but don't deny through fear or complacency!


It would be absurd to state that ALL the conspiracy theories are false... but I do believe that MOST of them are simply the result of our need to ignore the harsh facts which are so easy to see as they are.

There goes that word "Fact" again...is there such a thing? I ask because it is the point of this thread.

It is funny how we are trained to see the words "Conspiracy Theory" as something that should be avoided..."it's just another conspiracy theory"

Should they have reported on the news that George Bush and Tony Blair were spreading another "Conspiracy Theory" about Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which was proved to be incorrect, but I have never heard it called a conspiracy theory, have you? Would we have taken the information as seriously if it was always reported as a conspiracy theory; who decides? The media?

Regarding your homeless man...he is a non-conformist and thus he doesn't matter...we are led to believe that people in the middle east are non-conformists and thus they don't matter either..."it's OK we can kill a few hundred thousand of them and destroy their homeland; after all they are non-conformists!" Who decides what we should conform to? I am in favour of diverse culture, I don't want to conform; does that mean I don't matter?

Hundreds of thousands of people are dying...there is a fact if there is one. I can almost see people tipping there head to one side and then the other as they ponder, "oh well yes I guess that is probably right", in a very nonchalant way because it is not them or the people that matter to them that are being killed! I'm angry...that's a fact!

Ghislain

Awani
12-22-2015, 11:18 PM
Today a good friend and a Muslim (who does not know about my alchemical and psychedelic interests) told me - and tried to convince me - that this life is a dream... because the Quran says it is. And sleep is a dream within a dream.

Cool. I agree. ;)

:cool:

zoas23
12-23-2015, 05:26 AM
It is a shame, but this thread does seem to be heading down the conspiracy rabbit hole...and that's a fact ;)

Have you seen the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know!?"?

I did... I hated it. It is mostly built on false premises and syllogisms which are "tricky".

I.e, it is impossible to determine the location of a Quantum...
The atoms are made of quantums.
A basketball is made of atoms
Conclusion: it is impossible to determine the location of a basketball.
(The movie actually uses this syllogism)

Maybe one of the problems of the thread is that we are talking about some issues as if they were a "package" and it does not make any sense to do it.

I.e, it is known that Einstein stated: "Nothing is absolute, everything is relative"... but he stated such thing in the context of physics and he was not even talking about the WHOLE of physics, but only about who physics measure some "facts" about some objects, specially they speed.

When he became a Pop Icon, his phrase was taken completely out of context and started to be used to talk about economy, theology, anthropology, American Football and fleas.

Einstein went strong about such thing and explained that he was talking about some specific laws of physics, not about an "EVERYTHING" that includes American Football, how to bake a cake and the New World Order.

Maybe that's the problem of this thread...
We can discuss if the scientifically accepted structure of the atom is just a speculation or if it's a fact.

Or we can discuss if George Bush Jr. was a warmonger or not...

Or if the Angels are real or a man-made illusion...

But talking about the structure of the atom, George Bush and the reality of the Angels all at once is probably something that leads nowhere.

Physical facts, theological facts, political facts, psychological facts, economical facts... does it make sense to discuss all these issues in a single thread?

I do not know if the physical body of George Bush Jr. is made of atoms or not... but I'd say without considering myself a "naive believer" that he was (or is) a right wing warmonger, even if I do not know if the atoms are "real" or not.

Ghislain
12-23-2015, 08:30 AM
We can discuss if the scientifically accepted structure of the atom is just a speculation or if it's a fact.

Just something to ponder...

One Electron Universe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe)

Ghislain

Ghislain
12-23-2015, 09:09 AM
zoas23, I believe "everything" is relative, time, space and matter. Do you know of anything that is implicit or absolute?

What are we, are we something absolute or just a freak pattern in an evolutionary cycle from a set of elements of a periodic table?

I sometimes ask people to imagine a planet made of smoke. If you look at this planet from a distance it has everything that we have here, plants, animals, land a sea. Then I ask them to imagine what would happen if we went to that world. As there is not much mass there would be a lot less gravity than we have here, but all the same we would sink until we found some sort of equilibrium for our relative mass; and upon the way we may cause a lot of damage as the smoke swirled about us, pulling in trees and land with us.

A White-Dwarf (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf) is basically the compact corpse of a star. Its mass is 10,000,000 grams per cubic centimeter (or 1 tonne). Imagine a life-form evolving on a white dwarf and then coming to Earth. Earth would be like smoke to that life-form.

Maybe the above is a stretch of the imagination, but it shows how everything is relative...is a mountain heavy? Not if you are from a white dwarf.

Note that there are even denser objects in the universe such as neutron stars, black holes and, hypothetically, quark stars.

Ghislain

Ghislain
12-23-2015, 09:28 AM
Physical facts, theological facts, political facts, psychological facts, economical facts... does it make sense to discuss all these issues in a single thread?

It does if the subject is the question of belief, fact or truth.

Perhaps we might ask Dev to expand on the purpose of this thread.


In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth.



Ghislain

zoas23
12-23-2015, 10:21 AM
zoas23, I believe "everything" is relative, time, space and matter. Do you know of anything that is implicit or absolute?

Oh, yes, of course I do. That's what I was trying to explain.

I do agree with your idea that time, space and matter are relative concepts (the infamous "categories" of Kant).

I am not a big fan of Kant (I prefer Bergson!), but the main idea of Kant is that we, as humans, have innate categories and we perceive the universe/world using those categories. He did not believe that those categories offer an "accurate" perception of the universe as it is, he simply stated that we perceive the world using them.

The two main categories are Time, Space and Existence. Kant's idea, explained in a very simple way, would be that, in example, an "X" thing of the universe will be perceived by a human as a football. This human will perceive that this football, when he sees it or touches is, EXISTS... he will also perceive that it exists in TIME and SPACE.

Kant's idea is very simple: an analogy would be stating, using a concept of modern science, that the color "red" does not exist... that it is simply how our brain perceives a specific range of frecuencies of the visible spectrum. The color "red", as we perceive it, does not exist in the universe in the way that we perceive it.

According to Kant, Time, Space and Existence are just like the color "red"... a human interpretation of an "X" something that we do not know what it is, but not a factual reality.

But you have asked if I believe in something that is ABSOLUTE... and I said that I do.

I simply believe that a conversation like this one has many levels... and that it's a "mystical mistake" to mix them.

I will talk about the most prophane and pointless thing that comes to my mind: soccer, a sport that I hate.

If we speak about soccer, then if the ball crosses the line of the goal and the attacking team has no players in off-side, nor any of them broke any of the rules (like touching the ball with the hands, kicking a player of the opposing team, etc)... well, they have definitely scored a goal. That is a fact.

A scientist, an illiterate man, an alchemist, a mystic, a buddhist obsessed with meditation and George Bush can be watching the match and probably they will all agree that the team has scored 1 point.

Does it matter if Time and Space don't actually exist?
Does it matter if the atomic theory is wrong?
Does it matter if life is simply a dream?
Does it matter if the Universe is a hologram?

I believe that it doesn't if we are talking about a specific match of soccer and discussing if there was a goal from a team or not.

So... I do believe that there are many "levels" in a discussion like this one... and that we are mixing those levels.

I.e, the planes that crashed against the twin towers... it is possible to state that:
1) Al-Qaeda was responsible for that crash.
2) That the US government did a "false flag" operation to invade some countries.
3) That the planes did not cause much harm and that the harm was caused by bombs.
4) Etc...
5) Any combination of these theories.

Does quantum mechanics, the atomic theory, the existence of the universe or the gender of the angels have anything to do with it?

I believe it does not.

Or we can discuss other facts:
I.e, the USA invaded Iraq (O.K... a person with different political views can change the wording of this phrase and state that "The USA liberated Iraq"). A quite neutral way to say it would be to state the the USA sent troops to Iraq. That's a fact... an absolute fact.

Of course, we can discuss about it from a different "level" and discuss if Iraq exists or if it is a hologram or if it is the dream of a God who is dreaming about the world and we all live inside the dream of this God. I am NOT against discussions of this type at all...

But I am also convinced that it's a mistake to mix the "levels"... and I also believe that it is possible to talk about facts that happen in the world... and that this specific discussion (the discussion about a goal in a soccer match, the discussion of the 9/11, the discussion of the invasion of Iraq... are mostly 100% independent from other discussions about the true nature of the existence of the universe).

A lot of the things I wrote are somehow silly, but I think that this thread is somehow mixing two many different "levels" in a weird way that does not really contribute to a good understanding of anything.

Ghislain
12-23-2015, 10:55 AM
Could it be that it is impossible to understand anything implicitly, could it be possible that because a ball crossed a line that the USA invaded Iraq; the butterfly affect.

So it may be that the "fact" that a goal was scored is only perceived by those that believe this to be the case. To an ant in the grass by the line an object did pass by, but to the ant there was no goal.

It could be that there is a God and his purpose for our creation was that he is an avid football fan ;)

When Dev wrote, "In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth.", then in your examples he is correct, for we believe a goal has been scored once a ball passes a line, but no other animal on the planet does, for that matter a person that has never before seen or heard of a game of football wouldn't believe a goal had been reached.

Ghislain

Andro
12-23-2015, 11:23 AM
Edited by Ghislain. Reason: addition of a third party

It could be that there is a God

Is this "god" the third party? If so, would "it" be absolute/relative, belief/fact?

Awani
12-23-2015, 12:11 PM
In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth...

Imagine that you are having a dream. And then you wake up from this dream and you tell your dream to a friend. Are you explaining fact or truth or belief or experience to your friend? There is no difference. All are correct, all are wrong...

"...life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves..." - Bill Hicks

:cool:

JDP
12-23-2015, 06:16 PM
Could it be that it is impossible to understand anything implicitly, could it be possible that because a ball crossed a line that the USA invaded Iraq; the butterfly affect.

So it may be that the "fact" that a goal was scored is only perceived by those that believe this to be the case. To an ant in the grass by the line an object did pass by, but to the ant there was no goal.

It could be that there is a God and his purpose for our creation was that he is an avid football fan ;)

When Dev wrote, "In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth.", then in your examples he is correct, for we believe a goal has been scored once a ball passes a line, but no other animal on the planet does, for that matter a person that has never before seen or heard of a game of football wouldn't believe a goal had been reached.

Ghislain

Such examples are faulty because they rely on subjectivity. Scoring a "goal" is a figment of the imagination of men, the same men who invented the game in question in the first place. Other men who have never seen the said game can be taught the totally arbitrary rules of it and be made to understand the game and what constitutes a goal. But animals will never understand this because they are not capable of abstract thinking at the same level as man is. So they will never grasp the purely abstract and arbitrary concept of what constitutes a "goal". But they are perfectly capable of observing simple empirical facts like everyone else. A cat or a dog, for example, will observe that ball crossing that line, and they will simply interpret it for what it truly is: some round moving object crossing some area. Nothing else. Totally meaningless to them otherwise than that very basic fact. As far as they are concerned, it might as well be a square rock or an empty beer bottle crossing the same area instead of a reglementary ball, to them it would still be nothing more than a moving object crossing an area. It is us who arbitrarily can give this simple empirical fact a deeper and totally arbitrary meaning. But will this alter the fact that both animal and man observer have seen the exact same basic empirical fact (i.e. round object crossing some area)? Nope. Both observers saw the exact same thing. But one observer arbitrarily gave it an abstract meaning which the other one did not. The observed empirical fact was exactly the same for both, though. One's interpretation of it did not alter the other's perception of the exact same reality. So this is pretty much yet another example showing that how you choose to interpret the world around you won't alter the facts one bit. The facts will remain the same for everyone, including, for example, the self-deluded person who thinks that by flapping his arms real hard and concentrating he will be able to fly, but in fact will not, as all the other observers who share or do not share his wishful fantasies will plainly see as well.

The point being: facts are independent of what you think of them. They do not care what observers "think" of them. They just "are". And you better accept them, because otherwise be ready to get some very rude awakenings out of life. Reality won't change for anyone. It will continue to be what it is. Forever. And ever. No amount of fantasizing or interpreting will alter it.

Awani
12-23-2015, 06:25 PM
Reality won't change for anyone.

For those who think this it certainly won't.

If a person has not met God why would that person believe in God? If a person has not seen reality change then why would that person believe it can change?

Any fact/truth is limited to the experience of the individual.

:cool:

JDP
12-23-2015, 06:43 PM
For those who think this it certainly won't.

If a person has not met God why would that person believe in God? If a person has not seen reality change then why would that person believe it can change?

Any fact/truth is limited to the experience of the individual.

:cool:

Once again, in order to show that such claims are not so, we have to put you, the person entertaining such ideas, in a position where you will not be able to dispute the facts, so as usual we will have to put you "in harm's way", just to get things across very clearly. Using the same example as above, we put you in the area where the ball will cross the line, and you are also not allowed to physically move, and then we have a professional player kick it real hard in the general direction of, say, your immobilized face. You are free to try to alter reality with your alleged mind powers and reality-bending perceptions all you want, but you can't physically move. My money says that the football will slam against your immobilized face and, unfortunately, it will be a pretty disagreeable experience for you. And if you try to deny that such a thing happened, despite all the eye-witnesses to the contrary, the visible bruise where the speeding football collided with your face will prove you quite wrong. But you will learn a valuable lesson out of it: no amount of wishful thinking stopped that football from colliding with your face. Next time you will think it twice before trying to defy reality by simply trying to alter it with arbitrary concepts and abstract thoughts which do not extend anywhere beyond inside one's head, and therefore have no effect whatsoever on the "outside" world of physical realities we actually live in.

Awani
12-23-2015, 09:14 PM
Your examples are of "small things", and I speak of "big things". That is why your argument won't work on my position on the matter. And like I said an experience/perception cannot be given to someone else... it has to be experienced... so if "mystery" has never been experienced why consider it?

Why waste time and energy trying to move a ball left or right with your mind? Reality is not about physical objects. In a video game everything in it are physical objects... but those objects are not what the game is about... a game is an experience... and experience is not fixed. Same with life. That is how/why reality can change.

Trying to make a bullet miss my head is not proof that reality is fact... it just means that the failure to make the bullet miss my head is my own belief in the fact that reality is real!

:cool:

Ghislain
12-23-2015, 10:33 PM
JDP we are all bound by the rules of the program, but rules can be broken if you know how. I don't know how to break them, but then I have never earnestly tried.

The rules say it takes the power of a supernova to create gold, but there are many here trying to do this without that power...I am not one of those, but I wish those that are good fortune.


My thesis then, is as follows: in addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give definite form to certain psychic contents -Carl Jung

Our reality is handed down to us from generation to generation. When you are thinking and you say to yourself, "should I do this or should I do that", to whom are you asking that question, where are you:

are you your hand?
are you your leg?
are you your head?

Are you still you if you cut off your hand?

So I guess so long as we have an oxygenated blood supply to our head we can cut off most of our body. Therefore by process off elimination we must be somewhere in the head. We can cut off our ears and skin for that matter, as long as we have an oxygenated blood supply to the brain. Again by process of elimination we must be our brain...this can go on and on as we know people have had brain surgery where parts of the brain have been removed and they are still fine.



Emma Murray, 24, was told of her son's condition minutes after giving birth.
Aaron was diagnosed with rare health disorder called holoprosencephaly.
He was born with a brain stem so can move and breathe but not a full brain.
She was told Aaron could die in minutes and helped arrange baptism.
Two years on, Aaron has amazed doctors - and has spoken his first word

Source: (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3293259/Baby-born-without-brain-amazes-doctors-celebrating-second-birthday-says-Mummy-time.html)

Or this...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFVWOfveXo4

Or the 44 year old guy with 50 -75% of his brain missing HERE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-brain-tiny-idUSN1930510020070720)

So now we see individuals with the majority of the brain missing and still they are here and interacting. so where is this entity called YOU hiding?

Look out of your eyes and YOU can see, but not with your eyes. Touch something and YOU can feel, but not with your fingers. Sniff something and YOU can smell, but not with your nose. All these things are just transducers that send signals to your brain, if you can reproduce those same signals at the brain you can sense all of those things without any of the hardware.

I live in two worlds, one, this one, where everything is laid out in rules, and another where nothing at all matters and there are no rules. How I got to see this other world was by asking to see it, try it for yourself, this is how I did it:

First I had to presume that there was something greater than me...call it God if it rocks your boat... then I asked to see the truth. I repeated this every night before I went to sleep and things started changing in my life, it can be called coincidences, but many would like the coincidences I have had. I feel I have seen the truth, but I could be wrong and there may be a lot more to see, but I am satisfied, it has explained a lot and nearly all religious texts fit with what I have seen and I am not religious.

Try it for yourself, it costs nothing but a little of your time each night...if it doesn't work what have you lost, but if it does what do you stand to gain?

Nothing is real in the sense that we think of real.

That is:

true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent

existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary

being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary

absolute; complete; utter

Everything exists in the imagination, but there is the crunch...where is this imagination?

Ghislain

P.S. There is a paradox in what you ask Dev to do, for if he were to shoot himself in this world he would cease to exist in this world...that's the rule... and thus he would be sure he was right but you would be non the wiser.

Awani
12-23-2015, 11:38 PM
There is a paradox in what you ask Dev to do, for if he were to shoot himself in this world he would cease to exist in this world...that's the rule... and thus he would be sure he was right but you would be non the wiser.

Yes and then there is that aspect... ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgZ73Lc5VS8

:cool:

JDP
12-24-2015, 08:10 AM
Your examples are of "small things", and I speak of "big things". That is why your argument won't work on my position on the matter. And like I said an experience/perception cannot be given to someone else... it has to be experienced... so if "mystery" has never been experienced why consider it?

Why waste time and energy trying to move a ball left or right with your mind? Reality is not about physical objects. In a video game everything in it are physical objects... but those objects are not what the game is about... a game is an experience... and experience is not fixed. Same with life. That is how/why reality can change.

Trying to make a bullet miss my head is not proof that reality is fact... it just means that the failure to make the bullet miss my head is my own belief in the fact that reality is real!

:cool:

It is in the "small things" that the ideas that you entertain can be proven wrong, not in the "big things" that no one can prove or disprove simply because there is no evidence either way. Can someone prove that a god exists? No. Can someone prove a god does not exist? No. So we are at a dead end from which there is no exit with the "big things". On the other hand, the "small things", like altering physical facts, can easily disprove such claims as altering reality with your mind.

Awani
12-24-2015, 08:46 AM
There are no physical facts. And if you have never seen such a thing be broken why would you believe it?

:cool:

JDP
12-24-2015, 08:51 AM
Ghislain: I am one of those who is trying to make gold (and silver) "without the power of a supernova". You might ask, "how can then a staunch empiricist such as yourself believe that this can be possible if official science says it can't be done?" Well, I have my reasons. The fact that I am an empiricist should tell you that I have already seen enough empirical evidence through my own experiments regarding some "particular" processes of the old "chymists" to convince me to continue pushing forward with more investigations regarding this subject. So I rather skeptically question "official" science's conviction -which is largely based on theories about matter- that transmutation through what they call "chemical reactions" is supposedly "impossible". So I have pertinent reasons for this, based not on conjectures, theories or speculations about matter but on empirical facts, which in due time and after much further investigation (the whole subject is more complicated than some imagine, specially since the yield of such "particulars" so far is small enough to be disputed regarding where exactly did the obtained precious metals come from, that is if they really "preexisted" at all in any of the employed materials in the first place), if I so decide to disclose them, will be able to prove through repeatable experiments that anyone can perform for themselves, thus not requiring to take my word for it about their reality. Facts can speak for themselves.

I never said that Dev should shoot himself as an experiment. I only used the bullet example as a sarcastic and exaggerated self-endangering example to get the point across. I have used less dangerous examples in which the subject would survive the experiment and still get the same point across. The point is not Dev dying and finding out some "transcendental" truth about life "beyond the grave", but that no matter how much Dev wishes that he could change a physical reality with his mind alone he simply will not achieve it. Jedi mind tricks are only "real" in the Star Wars movies. In the real world, "The Force" is unfortunately not with us. We can't alter physical realities simply by wishing so with our minds.

JDP
12-24-2015, 08:54 AM
There are no physical facts. And if you have never seen such a thing be broken why would you believe it?

:cool:

If there aren't any, then you should not mind submitting to any of the proposed physical experiments. You have nothing to fear. It's all one big illusion and therefore you can manipulate it with your mind, so the outcome will always be you escaping the dangerous situations purely by wishing so. Bring on the gun and bullet... ;)

Ghislain
12-24-2015, 10:11 AM
We, that is our bodies, are just a vessel, a machine carrier like a car, through which we interpret what we call reality. You can destroy the body according to the rules, but you cannot destroy the driver...they will just go and get another vehicle, just as we do when our cars break down.

Our knowledge is very limited, I have proved this with the thread on the computer putting a character on the screen...everyone knows it happens, but very few know how; and even my explanation of it was limited as anyone who knows computers could probably pick quite a few holes in it.

So if we now look at a much more complicated system such as reality then we have to ask ourselves what do we really know about this system.

We talk of atoms, where we have a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons, the neutrons have no charge whereas the protons have positive charge. Now by the laws of physics we know that positive repels positive so we need something to hold these protons together and thus we have Gluons.

Now what do we know about Gluons? I know very little and I believe that a lot of what is known is just theories that fit the bill right now.

Have a read about Gluons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon) before we continue...

OK now we know all we need to know about...oh wait... now need to know about...

Quarks
Hadrons
Mesons
Gauge bosons
The Quark model
Quantum chromodynamics
Quark–gluon plasma
Color confinement
Glueball
Gluon field
Gluon field strength tensor
Exotic hadrons
The Standard Model
Three-jet events
Deep inelastic scattering

Do you see my point? You can have an opinion, but realise that is all it is, for that opinion is based on a lot of missing information.

How about String Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory)

How about the Double Slit Experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment)

JDP because you haven't seen it, it doesn't mean it isn't there.

If you see it you will laugh, everyone does.

I have no scientific explanation of this, but I'm sure there probably is one; whether it would be comprehensible I have no idea...I don't even find the information on the links above comprehensible so I guess it won't be...unless you're some sort of savant.

Can you see how your opinion of reality is subjective...it has to be...as is everyone else's.

Here are some videos that may be "real":

Demonstration of the Inner Fire or Tummo Meditation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiJvD2BPOhA) 28 Mins Guy meditating naked in the snow


Tibetan Buddhist Monks - Meditation and Science (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-wuOYlxMSY) 4 Mins

ASTONISHING man doing Telekinesis for real (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FFqddRyf5c) 5 Mins 27 Watch this one if only for the entertainment value.


STAN LEE SUPERHUMANS - GUY BAVLI - KINETIC MAN - MIND TELEKINESIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNctiOZPdO8) 13 Mins 39

Ghislain

Awani
12-24-2015, 11:36 AM
In the real world, "The Force" is unfortunately not with us.

I think you mean "In the real world, "The Force" is unfortunately not with me"...

Below are five quotes from Star Wars. According to my own experiences (and the experiences of others I trust but reserve judgement) they are all "true".
"It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together"
"Use the Force, Luke"
"I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced"
"The Force will be with you, always"
"The Force is strong with this one"


...no matter how much Dev wishes that he could change a physical reality with his mind alone he simply will not achieve it.

Not true. It is not about "wishing". Also not saying I can, saying I could... saying others can. But this is not what this thread is about. You keep missing the point.


In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth.

Belief, and truth and fact are all different sides to the same coin IMO. It is not about avoiding bullets, or changing physical objects. Or turning water into wine. Those things are "kids" stuff.

"Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." ~ Roald Dahl

But I am not saying you have to think like me. No not at all. You have created your physical real reality which is what you like to live in. I have created a different reality. There are an infinite number of realities. We all have different beliefs. We all have our own truth. Perhaps that is the only "fact" I can adhere to.

:cool:

JDP
12-24-2015, 12:21 PM
Ghislain: Reality won't change because of my or anyone else's opinions. It is the exact same reality as yours, mine, and Dev's too, as much as he wishes it was a different one. That is just his arbitrary interpretation of reality, but it is the exact same one for everyone when it gets to physical facts. Remember, the dog or cat watching the same football cross the line as a man and interpreting the observed fact quite differently, even though the fact was really the same for all observers (i.e. round object crosses some area), no matter how they interpreted it? Same thing.

Awani
12-24-2015, 12:25 PM
Reality won't change because of my or anyone else's opinions.

Even scientists would disagree with this statement.

Worldviews of Prominent Physicists and Philosophers


There is no deep reality.
Reality is created by observation.
Reality is an undivided wholeness.
Reality consists of a steadily increasing number of parallel universes.
The world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning.
The world is made of ordinary objects.
Consciousness creates reality.
The world is twofold, consisting of potentials and actualities

Source (http://www.commonsensescience.org/quantum_reality.html)

:cool:

JDP
12-24-2015, 12:34 PM
I think you mean "In the real world, "The Force" is unfortunately not with me"...

Below are five quotes from Star Wars. According to my own experiences (and the experiences of others I trust but reserve judgement) they are all "true".
"It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together"
"Use the Force, Luke"
"I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced"
"The Force will be with you, always"
"The Force is strong with this one"



Not true. It is not about "wishing". Also not saying I can, saying I could... saying others can. But this is not what this thread is about. You keep missing the point.

It is not with you either, or with anyone else for that matter. If it was, then you wouldn't have a problem going around moving objects with your mind or making "weak minded" people change their decisions, as the Jedis of fiction do. You can't do it. No one can. If you know someone who says he has Jedi-like mind powers, let me know. I know of someone who will give him a cool million bucks for a demonstration of such amazing feats, but under careful controlled conditions so that no cheating can be used. And yes, the thread has always been about this subject. Belief can't alter reality. You may think it can, but in reality the physical facts that constitute reality will continue to be the same quite unhindered by what you chose to believe.





Belief, and truth and fact are all different sides to the same coin IMO. It is not about avoiding bullets, or changing physical objects. Or turning water into wine. Those things are "kids" stuff.

"Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." ~ Roald Dahl

But I am not saying you have to think like me. No not at all. You have created your physical real reality which is what you like to live in. I have created a different reality. There are an infinite number of realities. We all have different beliefs. We all have our own truth. Perhaps that is the only "fact" I can adhere to.

:cool:

If it is "kids stuff" then why hasn't anyone done it? There is even a cool million bucks waiting for anyone who can prove that he can really do any of this "kids stuff" under strict controlled conditions so that no cheating can be employed, but naturally all who have pretended to be able to do such telekinetic things have miserably failed when properly tested.

JDP
12-24-2015, 12:48 PM
Even scientists would disagree with this statement.

Worldviews of Prominent Physicists and Philosophers


There is no deep reality.
Reality is created by observation.
Reality is an undivided wholeness.
Reality consists of a steadily increasing number of parallel universes.
The world obeys a non-human kind of reasoning.
The world is made of ordinary objects.
Consciousness creates reality.
The world is twofold, consisting of potentials and actualities

Source (http://www.commonsensescience.org/quantum_reality.html)

:cool:

These are the beliefs of some quantum physicists. Lots of speculative stuff going on here. Some of these points can in fact very easily be dismissed. Like this one:


Reality is created by observation.

Really? Tell that to a blind man who falls down a precipice and dies just all the same as someone who has 20/20 vision when they both hit the bottom. One is observing the situation very well, the other one isn't observing it at all, but the physical facts are quite undisturbed by what one is observing and the other one isn't. The end result will be the same for both.

Or this one:


Consciousness creates reality.

Really? Take a person who has been in a coma for most of his life and throw him down the same precipice as the blind guy and the 20/20 vision guy in the above example. Methinks that his unconsciousness won't stop him one bit from being subject to the exact same reality, and thus the outcome will be the exact same one for all three subjects.

Quantum physicists think it is "cool" to believe in weird new age guru-kind of stuff.

Ghislain
12-27-2015, 10:18 AM
JDP you keep asking people to try and break hard and fast rules of a created reality that would take a lifetime to master.

Just seek the truth and it will come to you; if you want to believe what you believe that is your prerogative, but I don't believe you will find what you are looking for if you already believe it doesn't exist.

I think people call it thinking outside of the box.

http://i.imgur.com/iLWIFFV.jpg?1

Ghislain

Awani
12-28-2015, 12:56 AM
Really? Tell that to a blind man who falls down a precipice and dies just all the same as someone who has 20/20 vision when they both hit the bottom.


http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/not-understanding-the-situation_zpsdi9boiqc.jpg

:cool:

JDP
12-28-2015, 08:40 AM
JDP you keep asking people to try and break hard and fast rules of a created reality that would take a lifetime to master.

Just seek the truth and it will come to you; if you want to believe what you believe that is your prerogative, but I don't believe you will find what you are looking for if you already believe it doesn't exist.

I think people call it thinking outside of the box.

http://i.imgur.com/iLWIFFV.jpg?1

Ghislain

You know what they say: seeing is believing. When you actually see this "weird shit" that does not have any logical explanation let me know. I do not doubt that Alice and Dorothy saw a lot of it, since they were in "Wonderland" and "Oz". But then again "Wonderland" and "Oz" are pure fiction.

JDP
12-28-2015, 08:41 AM
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/not-understanding-the-situation_zpsdi9boiqc.jpg

:cool:

http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/09/alice-face-palm-featured.jpg

http://ussjohnpauljones.org/images/Wizard_of_Oz_Dorothy.jpg

Awani
12-28-2015, 08:15 PM
These are the beliefs of some quantum physicists.

Exactly. Belief. Not fact. As is all science!

Law is law till it's not law. Earth is flat, then it's round... then it is illusionary and then...

“There is no truth. There is only perception.”
― Gustave Flaubert

:cool:

Peter Barnes
12-29-2015, 01:47 AM
HI Guys, may I ask what this has to do with Alchemy? Does it mean that for example that if you truly believe you will successfully create the Philosophers stone then you will? I can understand that in this case thinking affects beliefs which affect your actions which can affect you reaching your goal or not. But what if the goal is impossible?, for example in this case, lets say there is no philosophers stone, then believing you will succeed will only bring a life of failure and a kind of torture.
If you could have an affect on your flask by merely looking at it and meditating and believing that the substance in the flask will go throught the colours and become the PS, that would great. Does anybody believe this? If this IS the case then Alchemy isn't needed, just think positvely, do affirmations, drown your subconscious with the idea that Gold will come to you and that you will live to 400yrs of age, maybe your subconscious will find ways to get to those goals in more 'realistic' ways, possibly your subconscious knows the difference between what is real and what is fantasy and how to get to said goals, maybe not. That is IF accumulating gold and extreme longevity/health are the goals of alchemist.
I personally believe that you can affect reality, your own - by thinking negatively you tend to believe, act in negative ways, if you think, believe, act as if everybody is your enemy then it will effect your body internally and externally you end up getting into arguements/fights etc ... you 'attracted' it or became a shit magnet, lol. So I think you can affect people around you as well, if you smile and compliment people then you affect their biology, they feel good about themselves, you frown at others and giive them a bad look then you also affect their biology, but I'm not sure if we can affect inanimate objects like a chair for example, I think quantum physics guys believe that a chair in a room is only there cause you believe it will be there or its a probability, when you leave the room it is not there its only a probability - thiis messed up my brain as I think that when I leave the room does it mean it doesn't exist, If I ring my dad who's sitting in the room and ask him if the armchair is there he will say yes cause it is there or is it cause he and I were thinking about it??? Not sure if I got this right, but that's weird if this is the way these guys think.

JDP
12-29-2015, 08:44 AM
Exactly. Belief. Not fact. As is all science!

Law is law till it's not law. Earth is flat, then it's round... then it is illusionary and then...

“There is no truth. There is only perception.”
― Gustave Flaubert

:cool:

No, that is only the theoretical part of science. Then there is the empirical part, which is composed of observed facts which apply to everyone, be it you, me or everyone else in this planet.

JDP
12-29-2015, 09:04 AM
HI Guys, may I ask what this has to do with Alchemy? Does it mean that for example that if you truly believe you will successfully create the Philosophers stone then you will? I can understand that in this case thinking affects beliefs which affect your actions which can affect you reaching your goal or not. But what if the goal is impossible?, for example in this case, lets say there is no philosophers stone, then believing you will succeed will only bring a life of failure and a kind of torture.
If you could have an affect on your flask by merely looking at it and meditating and believing that the substance in the flask will go throught the colours and become the PS, that would great. Does anybody believe this? If this IS the case then Alchemy isn't needed, just think positvely, do affirmations, drown your subconscious with the idea that Gold will come to you and that you will live to 400yrs of age, maybe your subconscious will find ways to get to those goals in more 'realistic' ways, possibly your subconscious knows the difference between what is real and what is fantasy and how to get to said goals, maybe not. That is IF accumulating gold and extreme longevity/health are the goals of alchemist.
I personally believe that you can affect reality, your own - by thinking negatively you tend to believe, act in negative ways, if you think, believe, act as if everybody is your enemy then it will effect your body internally and externally you end up getting into arguements/fights etc ... you 'attracted' it or became a shit magnet, lol. So I think you can affect people around you as well, if you smile and compliment people then you affect their biology, they feel good about themselves, you frown at others and giive them a bad look then you also affect their biology, but I'm not sure if we can affect inanimate objects like a chair for example, I think quantum physics guys believe that a chair in a room is only there cause you believe it will be there or its a probability, when you leave the room it is not there its only a probability - thiis messed up my brain as I think that when I leave the room does it mean it doesn't exist, If I ring my dad who's sitting in the room and ask him if the armchair is there he will say yes cause it is there or is it cause he and I were thinking about it??? Not sure if I got this right, but that's weird if this is the way these guys think.



There are sections of this forum where you can discuss other things other than alchemy. But this topic can still have some relation to it, as seen in the very example that you used to show how mistaken is the idea of believing that you can alter reality simply by beliefs or wishful thinking. Indeed, if you could just adjust reality to your liking simply by wishing or believing it so then we would certainly have not had so many failures in any kind of pursuit throughout history, alchemy being an excellent example of this. Legions of seekers after the Stone failed, but at the same time a comparatively smaller amount of them reported success in preparing it. You would think that if by simply "believing" in something it becomes true, then the number of successes and failures regarding this subject would have been quite different. We should expect a large majority of successes and only occasional failure by individuals who did not really wish or believe that they could prepare the Stone. It is just one more of the tons of examples that show that the idea that you can change reality by simply "believing" in something is simply mistaken and unrealistic.

The type of "changes" you used as examples after that are of a psychological nature. As you very well observe, they will not affect inanimate objects, and that simply because they do not have minds to be affected by the way you behave towards them. A rock does not care one bit what you think of it. But it will always fall down towards the center of the Earth if lifted up and let go of. No matter how much you wish that it would do the opposite (i.e. go towards the periphery of the planet, away from the center) it just is not going to happen. Gravity does not give a rat's behind what you wish or believe would happen, it will continue to pull it down as it always does.

Ghislain
12-29-2015, 09:21 AM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/10298687_560933577398817_3476981899012302101_n.jpg ?oh=d1ca708ef481c0409ad3c181ebb4e0cf&oe=57119996

Ghislain

Ghislain
12-29-2015, 09:42 AM
Five Things Science Cannot Prove (but are necessary for science to work) (http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/five-things-science-cannot-prove-but-are-necessary-for-science-to-work)

Ghislain

zoas23
12-29-2015, 09:46 AM
i like the quote that Dev brought:

“There is no truth. There is only perception.”
― Gustave Flaubert


No, that is only the theoretical part of science. Then there is the empirical part, which is composed of observed facts which apply to everyone, be it you, me or everyone else in this planet.

Dev's quote made me think of Henri Bergson... His ideas may lead Dev and you to "shake hands" in this issue.

Bergson thought that the universe was a continuity, but we certainly see a multiplicity.
He believed that we can have an intuition of the "whole", but we perceive it divided (feel free to relate these ideas to the first part of the Emerald Tablet).

His idea was that:
PERCEPTION = SELECTION = SUBTRACTION

When we perceive, we "cut" the whole in pieces and we create images.

He developed a system to explain how the images work:

The outer part of an image is Perception: he uses the metaphor of a white light that contains every possibility, but we perceive a part of that white light in a process of selection and subtraction (the "white light" is a metaphor). We never see something "as it is", but simply select some parts of it.
A stupid way to say it: imagine that you are part of a group that includes Fulcanelli, an Engineer, an Architect, an Artist, a Tourist, a Monk and an Economist and you all visit the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
Fulcanelli will begin to spot alchemical allegories.
The engineer may begin to spot how the structure was created and how the structure is a work of art in itself.
The architect may get a perception of its design.
The artist may capture the nuances of the light, the shapes, the subjective textures.
The tourist may be fascinated by the weight of the memory that the cathedral contains.
The Monk can perceive it as the "house of God" and get focused on how the Cathedral emulates God.
The Economist may perceive its economical value.

None of them will see the Cathedral "as it is"... they all saw a part of what it is, a part of the spectrum of its "white light" or of all the things that it is.

The inner part of an image is ACTION.
WE often perceive objects and derive our perception into an ACTION (this action does not need to be performed). This means that our perception leads us to imagine a way in which the object can be used. There's also a subtraction there, a process of selection.

It is also possible to "skip" the action and remain in the PERCEPTION.
i.e: two lovers staring at the moon will probably remain in the surface of perception and won't continue to imagine an "action" or an "use" for the moon.

The last part of an image is AFFECTION... it is similar to the Caput Mortuum. A Part of the image was selected as a PERCEPTION... a part of the image was translated into an ACTION... the unperceived parts become an AFFECTION.
The affection is similar to the smile of the Mona Lisa, it's what we can't define or select, but "crosses" our perception.

Quite often ART plays with these issues.

I.e, the FOUNTAIN of Duchamp:

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/27/assets/images/duchamp10.jpg

An object that we often PERCEIVE very "fast" without much consideration and quite soon we relate it to an ACTION (peeing) -the affection could be all of our ideas related to the object, the sense of relief we may attribute to it, the way we feel about it, etc.

DUCHAMP simply did a "mind-fuck" trick and changed the whole process of PERCEPTION-ACTION-AFFECTION when he stated that the urinary was a "work of art" with an aesthetic value, with a symbolism that transcends our ordinary way of understanding it (linking it directly to a specific action, peeing).

JDP
12-29-2015, 10:21 AM
https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xft1/v/t1.0-9/10298687_560933577398817_3476981899012302101_n.jpg ?oh=d1ca708ef481c0409ad3c181ebb4e0cf&oe=57119996

Ghislain

This quote confuses assumptions, interpretations, theories and speculations with facts. Actual facts are not subject to change, they remain the same always. I love to use gravity as one of the best examples of this due to its beautiful simplicity. The gravity we observe today is the exact same one that Aristotle, Descartes and Newton observed in their times. Yet look at how differently they interpreted it and sought to explain the phenomenon. They were all observing the same empirical fact, which still remains unchanged, and will remain unchanged forever, and it will be observed all the same by future generations long after we are gone. What changed was the ideas of how what they all observed was happening, but not the observed fact. In conclusion:

Gravity = empirical fact that never changes, no matter how you seek to "explain" it, it will always be there doing "its thing", not caring one bit what you think of it

Theories & speculations about what causes it = can keep on changing with time and from one individual to another, subjective stuff

JDP
12-29-2015, 10:34 AM
i like the quote that Dev brought:

“There is no truth. There is only perception.”
― Gustave Flaubert



Dev's quote made me think of Henri Bergson... His ideas may lead Dev and you to "shake hands" in this issue.

Bergson thought that the universe was a continuity, but we certainly see a multiplicity.
He believed that we can have an intuition of the "whole", but we perceive it divided (feel free to relate these ideas to the first part of the Emerald Tablet).

His idea was that:
PERCEPTION = SELECTION = SUBTRACTION

When we perceive, we "cut" the whole in pieces and we create images.

He developed a system to explain how the images work:

The outer part of an image is Perception: he uses the metaphor of a white light that contains every possibility, but we perceive a part of that white light in a process of selection and subtraction (the "white light" is a metaphor). We never see something "as it is", but simply select some parts of it.
A stupid way to say it: imagine that you are part of a group that includes Fulcanelli, an Engineer, an Architect, an Artist, a Tourist, a Monk and an Economist and you all visit the Cathedral of Notre Dame.
Fulcanelli will begin to spot alchemical allegories.
The engineer may begin to spot how the structure was created and how the structure is a work of art in itself.
The architect may get a perception of its design.
The artist may capture the nuances of the light, the shapes, the subjective textures.
The tourist may be fascinated by the weight of the memory that the cathedral contains.
The Monk can perceive it as the "house of God" and get focused on how the Cathedral emulates God.
The Economist may perceive its economical value.

None of them will see the Cathedral "as it is"... they all saw a part of what it is, a part of the spectrum of its "white light" or of all the things that it is.

The inner part of an image is ACTION.
WE often perceive objects and derive our perception into an ACTION (this action does not need to be performed). This means that our perception leads us to imagine a way in which the object can be used. There's also a subtraction there, a process of selection.

It is also possible to "skip" the action and remain in the PERCEPTION.
i.e: two lovers staring at the moon will probably remain in the surface of perception and won't continue to imagine an "action" or an "use" for the moon.

The last part of an image is AFFECTION... it is similar to the Caput Mortuum. A Part of the image was selected as a PERCEPTION... a part of the image was translated into an ACTION... the unperceived parts become an AFFECTION.
The affection is similar to the smile of the Mona Lisa, it's what we can't define or select, but "crosses" our perception.

Quite often ART plays with these issues.

I.e, the FOUNTAIN of Duchamp:

http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/27/assets/images/duchamp10.jpg

An object that we often PERCEIVE very "fast" without much consideration and quite soon we relate it to an ACTION (peeing) -the affection could be all of our ideas related to the object, the sense of relief we may attribute to it, the way we feel about it, etc.

DUCHAMP simply did a "mind-fuck" trick and changed the whole process of PERCEPTION-ACTION-AFFECTION when he stated that the urinary was a "work of art" with an aesthetic value, with a symbolism that transcends our ordinary way of understanding it (linking it directly to a specific action, peeing).

The problem with the cathedral example is that it, again, relies on pure subjectivity. How the individual chooses to focus on the observed object still does not change the empirical fact that it is really nothing more than a pile of carefully carved and positioned stones. This is how a being devoid of the abstract thinking of man will see it. Take a cat or a dog and show him the same cathedral. For them it will be nothing more than just another structure made up of inanimate matter. That is the bare empirical fact that they are observing, with none of the subjective abstractions that man may give to the same structure. Conclusion:

Cathedral = structure made of carefully carved and positioned stones = the observed empirical fact

Considering it for its value, for its alleged hidden alchemical messages, for its religious use, etc. = subjective interpretations of the observed empirical fact

Ghislain
12-29-2015, 11:20 AM
Anomalies and discrepancies about gravity.

There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.


• Extra-fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.

• Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist manoeuvres.


• Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all, however this conclusion is disputed.

• Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit: Recent measurements indicate that planetary orbits are widening faster than if this were solely through the Sun losing mass by radiating energy.


• Extra energetic photons: Photons travelling through galaxy clusters should gain energy and then lose it again on the way out. The accelerating expansion of the universe should stop the photons returning all the energy, but even taking this into account photons from the cosmic microwave background radiation gain twice as much energy as expected. This may indicate that gravity falls off faster than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.

• Extra massive hydrogen clouds: The spectral lines of the Lyman-alpha forest suggest that hydrogen clouds are more clumped together at certain scales than expected and, like dark flow, may indicate that gravity falls off slower than inverse-squared at certain distance scales.


• Power: Proposed extra dimensions could explain why the gravity force is so weak.
Source: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies)



Dark Matter?
Extra dimentions?
The inverse square law of Gravity being brought into question?



In physics, the graviton is an hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson. The spin follows from the fact that the source of gravitation is the stress–energy tensor, a second-rank tensor (compared to electromagnetism's spin-1 photon, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor). Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field must couple to (interact with) the stress–energy tensor in the same way that the gravitational field does. Seeing as the graviton is hypothetical, its discovery would unite quantum theory with gravity. This result suggests that, if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton, so that the only experimental verification needed for the graviton may simply be the discovery of a massless spin-2 particle.
Source: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton)

JDP I agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to keep an open mind for all possibilities and I can never believe we know anything for certain as we don’t really know very much at all.

The only reason we believe in gravity is because we can see an effect of something that makes two objects attract each other. We know little about it, but there are many theories.

If we use this kind of logic then the Magician, Dynamo, must be able to walk through a plate glass window without leaving a hole in it...because I’ve seen it.

The films “Antz” and “A Bug's Life”, and I’m sure many other examples, make us laugh at the misconceptions of these little creatures about the reality of their world; at the same time we are not thinking about the misconceptions we may be making with our limited knowledge of our own world.

This is the reason for my signature at the bottom of the post...

Thus our truths are only our beliefs for we don’t know what we don’t know. If we only look on the surface we miss everything that goes on underneath.

Ghislain

Awani
12-29-2015, 01:23 PM
You would think that if by simply "believing" in something it becomes true, then the number of successes and failures regarding this subject would have been quite different.

This is simply not what I am saying or stating.

I am saying that the above quote is your fact and your belief at the same time. That is it.

I am not saying that what I am saying is the truth... I am only saying it is my belief... which is the truth.


HI Guys, may I ask what this has to do with Alchemy?

Everything. ;)


Dev's quote made me think of Henri Bergson... His ideas may lead Dev and you to "shake hands" in this issue.

I doubt it, because I have no intention of de-evolving to the way I was thinking 20 years ago.

:cool:

Peter Barnes
12-29-2015, 01:23 PM
Thanks JDP, I always thought a dangerous part of belief systems like religion for example is that if it fails you then YOU are the failure seeing as you don't have enough FAITH or belief, this puts again on a psychological level a lot of pressure on let's say the alchemist in this case, if he/she fails then would they tend to blame themsleves for not having enough belief when in reality it may or may not be their fault, I can say that I believe in God and yet believe in many areas in life there are cheats/charlatans who hide behind the veil of mystery, some don't intend to cheat but they believe in what they do so much that not only do they cheat themselves but other peope as well. I've found that persons usually cheat in areas that aren't too clearly defined scientifically, such as alchemy or many other subjects, for example I trained in Tai chi (Taiji) in london and our teacher spoke of Qi and how to ward off opponents using softness, if you get sucked into it then you end up believing and back up that belief by buying videos on how to defend yourself using taichi, watch movies that back up this belief (Hong kong type kung fu movies etc), hanging out with Taichi people etc but does it make it real, when confronted in a fight the other person may beat you up cause he hasn't bought into the Taichi ideas/method/theories, so the litmus test would be on the street or the ring, basically it doesnt work ... I got stabbed (6 times) on kilburn high road in London for my troubles and at that point I realised that the real world and the fantasy I created with the help of many charlatans are different a kettle of fish as they say. So nomatter how much I invested in that belief it doesn't compare with the reality of how things really are in a confict situation, yes that conflict situation can vary - you could have an arguement with a woman and may be able to defend yourself by using offbalancing techniques (mainy cause you don't want to hurt her) but what if its a strong man swinging a knife? Then the relaxed Taiji state first of all goes out the window and you'll have to run or use REALISTIC methods of protecting yourself.

Awani
12-29-2015, 01:36 PM
So nomatter how much I invested in that belief it doesn't compare with the reality of how things really are in a confict situation.

Is this quote of yours a fact, belief or truth?

:cool:

JDP
12-29-2015, 02:02 PM
Source: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies)



Dark Matter?
Extra dimentions?
The inverse square law of Gravity being brought into question?



Source: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton)

JDP I agree with a lot of what you say, but I have to keep an open mind for all possibilities and I can never believe we know anything for certain as we don’t really know very much at all.

The only reason we believe in gravity is because we can see an effect of something that makes two objects attract each other. We know little about it, but there are many theories.

If we use this kind of logic then the Magician, Dynamo, must be able to walk through a plate glass window without leaving a hole in it...because I’ve seen it.

The films “Antz” and “A Bug's Life”, and I’m sure many other examples, make us laugh at the misconceptions of these little creatures about the reality of their world; at the same time we are not thinking about the misconceptions we may be making with our limited knowledge of our own world.

This is the reason for my signature at the bottom of the post...

Thus our truths are only our beliefs for we don’t know what we don’t know. If we only look on the surface we miss everything that goes on underneath.

Ghislain

Dynamo is no different than David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, David Blaine, Val Valentino (who calling himself "The Masked Magician" exposed many tricks of the trade in several TV specials that I recommend you watch) etc. They all use tricks. They are very clever tricks, granted, but tricks nonetheless, which virtually anyone can carry out with enough money (for the required props, assistants, confederates, etc.), dedication and practice.

JDP
12-29-2015, 02:08 PM
Thanks JDP, I always thought a dangerous part of belief systems like religion for example is that if it fails you then YOU are the failure seeing as you don't have enough FAITH or belief, this puts again on a psychological level a lot of pressure on let's say the alchemist in this case, if he/she fails then would they tend to blame themsleves for not having enough belief when in reality it may or may not be their fault, I can say that I believe in God and yet believe in many areas in life there are cheats/charlatans who hide behind the veil of mystery, some don't intend to cheat but they believe in what they do so much that not only do they cheat themselves but other peope as well. I've found that persons usually cheat in areas that aren't too clearly defined scientifically, such as alchemy or many other subjects, for example I trained in Tai chi (Taiji) in london and our teacher spoke of Qi and how to ward off opponents using softness, if you get sucked into it then you end up believing and back up that belief by buying videos on how to defend yourself using taichi, watch movies that back up this belief (Hong kong type kung fu movies etc), hanging out with Taichi people etc but does it make it real, when confronted in a fight the other person may beat you up cause he hasn't bought into the Taichi ideas/method/theories, so the litmus test would be on the street or the ring, basically it doesnt work ... I got stabbed (6 times) on kilburn high road in London for my troubles and at that point I realised that the real world and the fantasy I created with the help of many charlatans are different a kettle of fish as they say. So nomatter how much I invested in that belief it doesn't compare with the reality of how things really are in a confict situation, yes that conflict situation can vary - you could have an arguement with a woman and may be able to defend yourself by using offbalancing techniques (mainy cause you don't want to hurt her) but what if its a strong man swinging a knife? Then the relaxed Taiji state first of all goes out the window and you'll have to run or use REALISTIC methods of protecting yourself.

What you said and observed is 100% totally correct. Unfortunately, many people learn about accepting reality the hard way and get hurt in the process. Some even get killed.

JDP
12-29-2015, 02:14 PM
This is simply not what I am saying or stating.

I am saying that the above quote is your fact and your belief at the same time. That is it.

I am not saying that what I am saying is the truth... I am only saying it is my belief... which is the truth.


You did equate belief with reality. The whole discussion was prompted from such strange assertions.


I doubt it, because I have no intention of de-evolving to the way I was thinking 20 years ago.

That would not be "de-evolving" but simply going back to your more rational and logical self. "Come back to the Light Side, Darth, err, I mean Dev!" ;)

Awani
12-29-2015, 02:34 PM
You did equate belief with reality. The whole discussion was prompted from such strange assertions.


In my opinion there is no difference between belief and fact/truth.

So yes, if reality is fact... then it is also belief. It does not make reality any less real... that is why your reality based examples are irrelevant.

That is also why it cannot be proven, you cannot prove belief anymore than facts, because either you choose to believe the facts or not. And who is the Sheriff that says that a certain belief is right and another is wrong? No one can do that.

:cool:

Awani
12-29-2015, 02:41 PM
Dynamo is no different than David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, David Blaine, Val Valentino... They all use tricks. They are very clever tricks...

And you are certain reality is not a trick? ;) Honestly how would you know? You cannot know. You can only "believe" that it is (or is not) a trick!

:cool:

Peter Barnes
12-29-2015, 03:05 PM
Is this quote of yours a fact, belief or truth?

:cool:

Lol, Dev ... in my opinion and in the example I gave it is truth, I thought I could defend myself this came from a belief a wrong belief that I could and so I cheated myself but I felt ok with this seeing as the litmus test hadn't happened yet and felt comfortable in my lie, confident even until reality rears its head and there is no room for error, I got lucky that the knife was a small blade and didnt pierce my lung or spleen (first stab was on my left side) ... I tell you that when you get stabbed you won't see it coming, the guy isn't going to advertise that he has a knife (as the charlatans teach - again the lie), you can't defend using fancy and flowery and beautiful techniques as in Taiji and other arts such as aikidou etc (because your flight/fight CNS is activated and fine motor skills go out the window and you end up using gross motor skills) you don't relax as they teach (because of the CNS, adrenaline dump etc you start having tunnel vision and thinking - mental relaxation goes out the window once your heartrate increases rapidly, thousand of years of evolution are telling you RUN or SMASH something and yet hundreds of years of man made traditions are telling you relax, redirect his force, root yourself, be soft etc... your brain/body won't listen cause the reaction is so instinctive and automatic and what got us here in the first place, not easy at all to overide, in a class its easy to be relaxed but when a gun is pointing at your head the relaxation is over)

So I think my quote is truth, for me anyway. Lets say you get a woman and teach her Taichi or aikido which are soft styles of martial art and she Believes she can defend herself in a real life conflict situation (the mistaken belief - if the conflict is with a stronger opponent such as a man for example) she gets a certain award by her teacher and this makes her feel confident and after years of this she encounter reality, she meets up with man wanting to rape her in some park early in the morning whilst she is going for a walk, her mistaken belief (initiated by cheaters and then fuelled by her own thoughts) most probably would get her into deep water and she would be raped or worse. I would teach that woman more practical forms of defence and see where her weaknesses and strengths lie, this is logical, I don't believe the PC BS that a woman can beat a man if she trains enough, she may get lucky but a man would overpower a woman in very short time, I would never teach my daughters to use any soft technique, I would teach her to use an equaliser like a knife or gun or learn how to run fast before attempting to 'fight' a man. This is a clear example of truth, the lady couldn't fight the rapist nomatter how much she trained in an unrealistic method, if she had studied realistically that she needed an equaliser of some sort she would be walking with a german shepherd and not on her own or be carrying a weapon etc,she wouldnt have that false sense of confience that got her in trouble.
I don't know the exact exampleI can give in alchemy but maybe somebody else can.

Thankyou JDP

Awani
12-29-2015, 03:59 PM
Spin-off Aikido thread created: Aikido (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4598-Aikido)

:cool:

JDP
12-29-2015, 04:51 PM
So yes, if reality is fact... then it is also belief. It does not make reality any less real... that is why your reality based examples are irrelevant.

That is also why it cannot be proven, you cannot prove belief anymore than facts, because either you choose to believe the facts or not. And who is the Sheriff that says that a certain belief is right and another is wrong? No one can do that.

:cool:

No, you keep missing the point. Belief is subjective. Facts are not. Facts apply to everyone. Beliefs do not. That's why the reality based examples I give go straight to the point and are totally relevant.

You can't prove beliefs, but you most certainly can prove facts. Examples of the two:

1- A person believes that god is an old bearded man who dwells somewhere in the sky and is constantly watching us to see if we are good or naughty. Proof? Zero. He has none. His word has to be taken for it. This = belief.

2- The above referred to person who believes that god is an old bearded man in the sky takes a stone, climbs up a ladder and drops it over your head. It falls down and it hits you. Proof? As much as you want of it. The exact same experiment can be repeated over and over and the results will always be the same. And if we repeat the exact same experiment with someone who thinks that Eric Clapton is god, the results are going to be exactly the same. And if we repeat the exact same experiment with a person who does not believe there is any such thing as a god the result will be exactly the same. And so on. This = fact.

So there is a HUGE difference between beliefs and facts. Facts are the same for everyone. Beliefs are not. Facts can be demonstrated over and over through empirical experience and the results are totally independent from the observer's beliefs. Beliefs can't be demonstrated, they rely on faith.

The "Sheriff" in question has a name: Empirical Evidence. It is the one that determines what are facts and what are not.

JDP
12-29-2015, 04:53 PM
And you are certain reality is not a trick? ;) Honestly how would you know? You cannot know. You can only "believe" that it is (or is not) a trick!

:cool:

Even if reality was a "trick", it is still reality, OUR reality, the one we live in. We must abide by it. No amount of other "trickery" is going to alter this "trick".

Awani
12-29-2015, 08:13 PM
The exact same experiment can be repeated over and over and the results will always be the same.

A lot of what is considered scientific facts are experiments that are repeated over and over again with the "majority" result becoming "the fact"... ignoring the "other" results.

No one can prove God, no one can disprove God.

Facts are not the same for everyone. There is no such thing as empirical evidence only the appearance of empirical evidence.

I agree that fact and belief are two different concepts in the mainstream worldview... but I think, with the progress of science, that eventually we will all understand that those two (belief + fact) will merge into one.


Even if reality was a "trick", it is still reality, OUR reality, the one we live in. We must abide by it. No amount of other "trickery" is going to alter this "trick".

Perhaps. It is certainly easier to follow your leader than to not.

There are no tricks to alter reality... only choices. I am not trying to convince you to take on my view on the matter, and I know you will want to have the last word... but all I can say - that I have not already said - is that the belief that fact and belief (and truth) are all different aspects of the same thing is indeed, perhaps, the only fact I feel comfortable accepting.

Enjoy your 4.8 % (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Estimates_based_on_critical_de nsity).

:cool:

JDP
12-30-2015, 08:56 AM
A lot of what is considered scientific facts are experiments that are repeated over and over again with the "majority" result becoming "the fact"... ignoring the "other" results.

No one can prove God, no one can disprove God.

Facts are not the same for everyone. There is no such thing as empirical evidence only the appearance of empirical evidence.

I agree that fact and belief are two different concepts in the mainstream worldview... but I think, with the progress of science, that eventually we will all understand that those two (belief + fact) will merge into one.

That can be due to experimental errors. The more complex the experiment, the more variables that are introduced, the more room for possible errors. That's why the majority of the matching results give a good idea of what the fact is in such cases. However, some experiments are so simple, and have been observed since so long ago, and always with the same outcome, that there simply is no room for error. The example of everything falling down towards the center of the Earth is such a case. It has been observed since man has been around, it is still the same phenomenon we observe today, and it will continue to be so until the planet is somehow blown to smithereens. Gravity is an example of a clear-cut fact. There is no escaping this. If you think otherwise, then let me cordially invite you, again, to jump off of a tall cliff and then just believe that you are not going to be smashed when you hit the bottom (sarcastic invitation, do not take literally or you WILL die for sure, that is another fact!) So there is such a thing as empirical evidence, and facts are the same for everyone. No matter how much you wish to say differently, you will be subjected to the same facts as everyone else. Facts are very democratic, they apply to everyone, they make no exceptions. Gravity is going to pull you down the same as me, and those rocks over there, and everything else on this planet. That is a fact. Very different from a belief. You can believe otherwise all you want, it won't alter the facts.


Perhaps. It is certainly easier to follow your leader than to not.

There are no tricks to alter reality... only choices. I am not trying to convince you to take on my view on the matter, and I know you will want to have the last word... but all I can say - that I have not already said - is that the belief that fact and belief (and truth) are all different aspects of the same thing is indeed, perhaps, the only fact I feel comfortable accepting.

Enjoy your 4.8 % (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Estimates_based_on_critical_de nsity).

:cool:

But it is your "leader" too. When it comes to reality & facts, you will have to abide by them too. You can think all you want that you don't have to, but you still will do so. Gravity, for example, will keep on pulling you down and prevent you from floating around at your will. If you think you can do otherwise simply by "believing", I know of someone who will give you a cool million bucks for a demonstration of your amazing fact-defying mind powers.

Seeker of Truth
12-30-2015, 10:10 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga2a8mzTcFk

Ghislain
12-30-2015, 03:48 PM
Nice video SoT.

JDP it is so hard to put into words, as words are our very limited creation of a communicative medium, what is trying to be conveyed in this thread.

If you were playing a game of football and you pick the ball up in your hands and walked it into the goal then you would not score a goal as that is not in the rules of the game. The same way you can't defy the deathly feats you propose people try to prove something is not reality, but you fail to realise that the reality you talk of is a game governed by rules; maybe you do realise this and you are only arguing the rules of this particular reality.

The point is that because you haven't seen or experienced something doesn't mean others haven't. I hope you do sometime, it will make for a great conversation.

Ghislain

JDP
12-30-2015, 04:54 PM
Nice video SoT.

JDP it is so hard to put into words, as words are our very limited creation of a communicative medium, what is trying to be conveyed in this thread.

If you were playing a game of football and you pick the ball up in your hands and walked it into the goal then you would not score a goal as that is not in the rules of the game. The same way you can't defy the deathly feats you propose people try to prove something is not reality, but you fail to realise that the reality you talk of is a game governed by rules; maybe you do realise this and you are only arguing the rules of this particular reality.

The point is that because you haven't seen or experienced something doesn't mean others haven't. I hope you do sometime, it will make for a great conversation.

Ghislain

And you actually think others have experienced these marvels and can alter reality with their thoughts? If that is so, the burden of proof is on them. What I am doing is providing examples that would show they can't accomplish what they claim. If they still think they can, then let us set up a demonstration under controlled conditions so that no cheating can get involved and we'll see if they actually can do what they claim. It is not a coincidence that when people making such strange claims are openly challenged and tested, like this:

http://skepdic.com/randi.html

all applicants have miserably failed. None of them has been able to win any of the many prizes offered for a successful demonstration of such powers.

Ghislain
12-30-2015, 07:01 PM
Get a DVD with a film you know...what you are asking is for somehow that film to change. That's not going to happen!

You're still missing the point, I can say no more.



Ghislain

zoas23
12-30-2015, 11:12 PM
When Nietzsche talked about the "death of God", he was not truly making a theological argument, but mostly explaining that the Aristotelian dream of finding "the truth" by the means of logic and science was going to be a failed experiment, a poorly chosen path that didn't lead to "the truth".

Wittgenstein did the same, following steps which are similar to the steps of Nicholas of Kues, he used logic to demonstrate how logic, philosophy and science are NOT related to the "the truth" because of some internal problems which do not have a solution and are intrinsic to their methods... he left a door openes to intuition.
His main argument was that the TRUTH about a preposition of a fact is always defined


Wittgenstein (condensed):

1
The world is everything that is the case. *
1.1
The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

1.2
The world divides into facts.

3
The logical picture of the facts is the thought.

3.12
The sign through which we express the though I call the proposition sign. And the proposition is the proposition sign in its projective relation to the world.

3.13
To the proposition belongs everything which belongs to the projection; but not what is projected.
Therefore the possibility of what is projected but not this itself.
In the proposition, therefore, its sense is not yet contained, but the possibility of expressing it.
("The content of the proposition" means the content of the signicant proposition.)
In the proposition the form of its sense is contained, but not its content.

3.14
The propositional sign consists in the fact that its elements, the words, are combined in it in a definite way.
The propositional sign is a fact.

3.332
No proposition can say anything about itself, because the propositional sign cannot be contained in itself (that is the "whole theory of types").

3.333
A function cannot be its own argument, because the functional sign already contains the prototype of its own argument and it cannot contain itself.

5.6
The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
5.61
Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.
We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this there is in the world, that there is not.

For that would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case since otherwise logic must get outside the limits of the world: that is, if it could consider these limits from the other side also.

What we cannot think, that we cannot think: we cannot therefore say what we cannot think.

5.62
This remark provides a key to the question, to what extent solipsism is a truth.
In fact what solipsism means, is quite correct, only it cannot be said, but it shows itself.

That the world is my world, shows itself in the fact that the limits of the language (the language which I understand) mean the limits of my world.

5.63
I am the world. (The microcosm.)

5.64
Here we see that solipsism strictly carried out coincides with pure realism. The I in solipsism shrinks to an extensionless point and there remains the reality co-ordinated with it.

6.41
The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is and happens as it does happen. In it there is no value -- and if there were, it would be of no value.
If there is a value which is of value, it must lie outside all happening and being-so. For all happening and being-so is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie in the world, for otherwise this would again be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.

6.42
Hence also there can be no ethical propositions.
Propositions cannot express anything higher.

6.43
If good or bad willing changes the world, it can only change the limits of the world, not the facts; not the things that can be expressed in language.
In brief, the world must thereby become quite another, it must so to speak wax or wane as a whole.
The world of the happy is quite another than that of the unhappy.

6.44
Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.

6.45
The contemplation of the world sub specie aeterni is its contemplation as a limited whole.
The feeling that the world is a limited whole is the mystical feeling.

6.52
We feel that even if all possible scientific questions be asnwered, the problems of life have still not been touched at all. Of course there is then no question left, and just this is the answer.

6.521
The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of this problem.
(Is not this the reason why men to whom after long doubting the sense of life became clear, could not then say wherein this sense consisted?)

6.522
There is indeed the inexpressible. This shows itself; it is the mystical.

6.54
My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

____________

If you aren't familiar with formal logic... he simply means that our propositions are tautologies and that their value ("true" or "false") is always outside them, that is never intrinsic to them.

A very silly example would be writing: "This sentence is true".... a sentence like that is a pure tautology that has no value, a proposition can't define its own value.

His method was going higher and higher till the world (or universe) itself becomes a proposition. So we can write another meaningless sentence: "The universe is true"... the sentence itself is as weird as "this sentence is true", the sense, the value, of the proposition is always OUTSIDE, not inside the proposition.

Science has a limited field to study... the sense or value of this field is OUTSIDE of it (Nicholas of Kues had found by himself the same idea, when he claimed that the truth can only be defined by "God" and that god works as a "not-other"... or an exception to logic -i.e, something that can define its own sense.... or as "the definition that can define itself": http://jasper-hopkins.info/NA12-2000.pdf).

It is often claimed that some alchemical paths get quite close to the "true stone", but have an intrinsic problem that makes them arrive to a dead-end street that leads nowhere... they have their own merits, but they can't produce the stone due to an intrinsic problem they have.

Science is similar to one of those paths.

Ghislain
12-31-2015, 01:48 PM
Step outside the illusion.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-i6ZIUF9ih4o/VnaW9fRBMuI/AAAAAAAAScM/Zt52j5ohQ8g/s1600/Sketch29274940.png

Ghislain

Thanks to Salazius for the pic ;)

Awani
12-31-2015, 03:50 PM
Get a DVD with a film you know...what you are asking is for somehow that film to change. That's not going to happen!

Perfect.


When Nietzsche talked about the "death of God", he was not truly making a theological argument, but mostly explaining that the Aristotelian dream of finding "the truth" by the means of logic and science was going to be a failed experiment, a poorly chosen path that didn't lead to "the truth".

Indeed.

Just yesterday I talked to a girl that had not had a menstrual cycle for seven years and she was healed by magical techniques and got her period right after and is now a mother. It cannot be proved, it cannot be explained. And neither she nor I need it to be. As long as it works.

Magic is real. Science is real. Both need each other, but neither can explain by the other.

:cool:

JDP
12-31-2015, 03:54 PM
Get a DVD with a film you know...what you are asking is for somehow that film to change. That's not going to happen!

You're still missing the point, I can say no more.



Ghislain

Such an analogy would imply that there is no such thing as free-will and that life is nothing more than a "script" that has already been written and can't be changed. If that is the case, then also forget about people being able to alter reality (i.e. the "script" itself) with their thoughts or beliefs, which would in fact be an ultimate example of free-will in action. Your very own "script" analogy would prevent such a thing from happening.

You are the one still missing the point, I could say more.

JDP
12-31-2015, 04:07 PM
Perfect.



Indeed.

Just yesterday I talked to a girl that had not had a menstrual cycle for seven years and she was healed by magical techniques and got her period right after and is now a mother. It cannot be proved, it cannot be explained. And neither she nor I need it to be. As long as it works.

Magic is real. Science is real. Both need each other, but neither can explain by the other.

:cool:

No, "magic" is not "real" yet since it has never proven any of its claims really "work", while on the other hand science usually has (and I say "usually" because it obviously is not infallible and is perfectly capable of making mistakes too, but at least it has proven a lot of its statements.) Anecdotal evidence, as entertaining or interesting as it may be, is not proof.

Awani
12-31-2015, 04:11 PM
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/the-proof-of-the-pudding-wall-art-sticker-wa013x-1051-p_zpsgnhusrhd.jpg

:cool:

JDP
12-31-2015, 04:30 PM
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/the-proof-of-the-pudding-wall-art-sticker-wa013x-1051-p_zpsgnhusrhd.jpg

:cool:

But you must make "the pudding" first... Magic still hasn't offered one that can be "eaten", and thus proven.

Awani
01-02-2016, 02:36 AM
If science cannot explain a cure then does the person cured care? Is not the proof the cure?

I have seen proof. I have experienced proof. I do not need science to validate anything. If anything science has shown to be wrong as much as it has shown to be "right". The deeper science investigate the more questions arise.

Perhaps this debate stem from the fact that both sides argue this concept of belief and fact being the same thing (or not) from totally different views of what reality is.

I am not saying that I can avoid a bullet, or that anyone can. When you play a video game the video game has rules that only a skilled hacker can crack (and perhaps there are such skilled hackers presently in the world that can hack reality and fly like Superman). That has got nothing to do with the argument that belief and fact are the same thing. You see the rules of the game change when you "change the game".

Because what it comes down to is "what is reality"... if you think reality is everything physical around you... if you think it is matter... solid and that reality is the present natural laws on this planet then yes there are facts that are not belief... but what you do not seem to understand is that this view of reality is YOUR belief. Because no one knows 100 % what reality is, yet. And even the most mainstream science lean towards what could be considered an esoteric view of what reality is. Like I said earlier we are only experiencing 4 %.

On the other hand if you think reality is more than what you can see and touch then you know that any fact is just a part of the belief you adher to in our limited time in this plane. Even natural laws can evolve. Nothing in the universe stays fixed. Everything flows.


If they still think they can, then let us set up a demonstration under controlled conditions so that no cheating can get involved and we'll see if they actually can do what they claim.

There is no such thing as control. Only the impression of control.


You are the one still missing the point, I could say more.

Both Ghislain and I have agreed and shown understanding of "your" point, but so far you have not shown any understanding of our point... which basically makes you the one missing the point. ;) There is no point in me trying to convince you of anything, the reason I keep going is because I think it is an important discussion and hopefully all the readers can see both sides and come to a conclusion.

And you are right JDP in your view on this matter, because who am I to question "your" belief!

:cool:

JDP
01-02-2016, 12:09 PM
If science cannot explain a cure then does the person cured care? Is not the proof the cure?

I have seen proof. I have experienced proof. I do not need science to validate anything. If anything science has shown to be wrong as much as it has shown to be "right". The deeper science investigate the more questions arise.

Perhaps this debate stem from the fact that both sides argue this concept of belief and fact being the same thing (or not) from totally different views of what reality is.

I am not saying that I can avoid a bullet, or that anyone can. When you play a video game the video game has rules that only a skilled hacker can crack (and perhaps there are such skilled hackers presently in the world that can hack reality and fly like Superman). That has got nothing to do with the argument that belief and fact are the same thing. You see the rules of the game change when you "change the game".

Because what it comes down to is "what is reality"... if you think reality is everything physical around you... if you think it is matter... solid and that reality is the present natural laws on this planet then yes there are facts that are not belief... but what you do not seem to understand is that this view of reality is YOUR belief. Because no one knows 100 % what reality is, yet. And even the most mainstream science lean towards what could be considered an esoteric view of what reality is. Like I said earlier we are only experiencing 4 %.

On the other hand if you think reality is more than what you can see and touch then you know that any fact is just a part of the belief you adher to in our limited time in this plane. Even natural laws can evolve. Nothing in the universe stays fixed. Everything flows.



There is no such thing as control. Only the impression of control.



Both Ghislain and I have agreed and shown understanding of "your" point, but so far you have not shown any understanding of our point... which basically makes you the one missing the point. ;) There is no point in me trying to convince you of anything, the reason I keep going is because I think it is an important discussion and hopefully all the readers can see both sides and come to a conclusion.

And you are right JDP in your view on this matter, because who am I to question "your" belief!

:cool:

But the problem is that you and him do miss the point: it is NOT "my belief", but simple observation of empirical facts that apply to EVERYONE, including you. You have admitted that you can't dodge bullets, avoid falling down cliffs, stones falling on your head, etc. So you have admitted that you are subject to these same facts and that you don't know how to avoid them from happening. What you seem to argue now is that ***maybe*** there is some people who can. I extend the exact same challenge to them: to perform such reality-altering feats under controlled conditions, so that no cheating can be involved.

And yes, there is such a thing as "controlled conditions". They are very necessary to insure that the claimant is not using something else perfectly natural and not "extraordinary" at all to give the ILLUSION that he is performing the incredible things he claims he can do, and make sure that he does perform them exclusively by means which are not explainable. I will give here an example of an uncontrolled vs a controlled experiment:


http://r4---sn-vgqs7nez.de2.ytapi.com/videoplayback?ratebypass=yes&ipbits=0&pl=47&requiressl=yes&mime=video%2Fmp4&expire=1451757955&sparams=dur%2Cid%2Cinitcwndbps%2Cip%2Cipbits%2Cita g%2Clmt%2Cmime%2Cmm%2Cmn%2Cms%2Cmv%2Cnh%2Cpl%2Crat ebypass%2Crequiressl%2Csource%2Cupn%2Cexpire&initcwndbps=345000&mm=31&signature=76616389DEB8525BC77C3EDCB04FC9F3FB29DE92 .A573DE3FE913507D0885EA42048446E3C77077F5&mn=sn-vgqs7nez&nh=IgpwcjA0Lm9yZDEyKhAyMDAxOjQ3MDowOmJmOjox&key=yt6&ip=2001%3A470%3A1f10%3Ab16%3A%3A3&dur=1090.130&sver=3&source=youtube&lmt=1394274648829954&id=o-AHozj_XlGYbUhnfhaWEpgUBnROCIEco6A51nTfnzzYJs&ms=au&mt=1451736271&mv=m&fexp=9407188%2C9412858%2C9415948%2C9416126%2C94167 78%2C9418958%2C9420452%2C9421932%2C9422429%2C94225 96%2C9423663%2C9423715%2C9424204%2C9424488%2C94250 64%2C9425549%2C9426232&upn=kNSEGMKJ-CM&itag=18

Notice how after the simple control was established, Hydrick's supposed powers "mysteriously" vanished and he could only offer silly excuses why he could not perform what he just did a few minutes ago.

Awani
01-02-2016, 04:58 PM
But the problem is that you and him do miss the point: it is NOT "my belief", but simple observation of empirical facts that apply to EVERYONE, including you.

But you choose "that" belief... or path to adhere to, right?

:cool:

Ghislain
01-02-2016, 05:41 PM
JDP you said...

"Wonderland" and "Oz" are pure fiction.

Can you be sure or did Lewis Carroll and Lyman Frank Baum write from experience?

Did you know that Lewis Carol was only the pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson?

Were you aware that even though Baum died in 1919 his stories included such things as television, augmented reality, laptop computers (The Master Key), wireless telephones (Tik-Tok of Oz), women in high risk, action-heavy occupations (Mary Louise in the Country), and the ubiquity of advertising on clothing (Aunt Jane's Nieces at Work).

I didn’t know this either...just read it on Wiki. :confused:

You also said of my DVD example...


Such an analogy would imply that there is no such thing as free-will and that life is nothing more than a "script" that has already been written and can't be changed.

I make no claim that there is a script; only rules, and free will is paramount to the reason of being.

The DVD analysis was a best fit explanation, it has rules it won’t show you anything that doesn’t apply to the rules. We are not fixed DVD information, we are like a dynamic film that runs according to the rules; a virtual reality.

You keep asking for proof and I have told you of a way you can prove it...


First I had to presume that there was something greater than me...call it God if it rocks your boat... then I asked to see the truth. I repeated this every night before I went to sleep and things started changing in my life, it can be called coincidences, but many would like the coincidences I have had. I feel I have seen the truth, but I could be wrong and there may be a lot more to see, but I am satisfied, it has explained a lot and nearly all religious texts fit with what I have seen and I am not religious.

Try it for yourself, it costs nothing but a little of your time each night...if it doesn't work what have you lost, but if it does what do you stand to gain?

I forgot to say I also meditated and exercised every day; keep the system clean and healthy ;)

Have you tried it?

If you do, then from here on start looking for signs...they will be there, but probably different for each individual...and treat everything that happens to you, good or bad, as a necessary step toward the goal. It takes a little time...well it did for me...I feel you need to respect the process for if not it will be treated as a whimsical thought and ignored; your choice, but remember you can't unknow something.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

Ghislain

JDP
01-02-2016, 06:08 PM
But you choose "that" belief... or path to adhere to, right?

:cool:

What makes you think that I -or anyone else- has a choice? Trust me, if it was possible to have Jedi-like powers I would be there among the first in line to have them too. But unfortunately, there is no such choice. We must abide by reality.

JDP
01-02-2016, 06:23 PM
JDP you said...


Can you be sure or did Lewis Carroll and Lyman Frank Baum write from experience?

Did you know that Lewis Carol was only the pen name of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson?

Were you aware that even though Baum died in 1919 his stories included such things as television, augmented reality, laptop computers (The Master Key), wireless telephones (Tik-Tok of Oz), women in high risk, action-heavy occupations (Mary Louise in the Country), and the ubiquity of advertising on clothing (Aunt Jane's Nieces at Work).

I didn’t know this either...just read it on Wiki. :confused:

Writers have very fertile imaginations, no doubt about it, and science & technology have sometimes "caught up" to these apparently fanciful ideas. Still, many of the things they write remain pure fiction, and obviously will remain so. The reality we live in is not quite like that of Oz or Wonderland.


You also said of my DVD example...



I make no claim that there is a script; only rules, and free will is paramount to the reason of being.

The DVD analysis was a best fit explanation, it has rules it won’t show you anything that doesn’t apply to the rules. We are not fixed DVD information, we are like a dynamic film that runs according to the rules; a virtual reality.

You compared it with a film in the DVD. Films are scripted (unless we are talking about random home-movies.) That analogy implies that life/reality is written in stone. No room for free will. The film always ends the same way and you can't change it. You should seek another analogy to express what your point of view is.


You keep asking for proof and I have told you of a way you can prove it...



I forgot to say I also meditated and exercised every day; keep the system clean and healthy ;)

Have you tried it?

If you do, then from here on start looking for signs...they will be there, but probably different for each individual...and treat everything that happens to you, good or bad, as a necessary step toward the goal. It takes a little time...well it did for me...I feel you need to respect the process for if not it will be treated as a whimsical thought and ignored; your choice, but remember you can't unknow something.

Good luck, whatever you decide.

Ghislain

What you suggest will prove nothing. You are talking about subjective emotions, which can differ from one person to the next. Meditation, for example, might lead one person to think that god is a bearded man in the sky, while to another person it might lead to the conclusion that god is a small green alien from Mars. I am talking about objective facts, what constitutes observable and testable reality, the same for everyone, no matter what each one believes.

Ghislain
01-02-2016, 07:04 PM
It is only you who have talked of any sort of power JDP...the thread is about belief.

You talk of reality like some solid fact...it is as solid as your dreams.


What makes you think that I -or anyone else- has a choice?

I was talking of your choice to look, I think you have that.


The film always ends the same way and you can't change it. You should seek another analogy to express what your point of view is.

I did if you bothered to read it...this is a difficult subject to put into words JDP. It is not a pissing contest, I thought you would like to investigate, but you seem to only want to consolidate your dogmatic truth.

Re-read your replies JDP, your train of thought is self defeating for someone looking for truth.

You are not alone, there are approximately 7 billion others who would agree with you; I used to be one.

Ghislain

Awani
01-03-2016, 01:46 AM
We must abide by reality.

So it is a blind following? If not belief then "blind trust". When I say blind I guess it can be viewed as a choice without choice.

:cool:

JDP
01-03-2016, 10:37 AM
It is only you who have talked of any sort of power JDP...the thread is about belief.

When you claim that beliefs and thoughts can alter reality then you are indeed talking about powers, like telekinesis, for example, the claim to move things purely by the mind, without any physical contact.


You talk of reality like some solid fact...it is as solid as your dreams.

Strange that my supposed "dreams" are the same for everyone. Hey, maybe I am god and Eric Clapton is just a poser trying to steal my thunder! ;)

http://41.media.tumblr.com/2f25de4b53a67feaedbab0d5e31e2886/tumblr_mgsdv3yvu81rdq3sgo1_1280.jpg


I was talking of your choice to look, I think you have that.

I have the exact same freedom to choose what to believe as you or anyone else, but how is that going to alter reality? It won't. Reality will continue to be the same for everyone. Reality is something you can't choose.


I did if you bothered to read it...this is a difficult subject to put into words JDP. It is not a pissing contest, I thought you would like to investigate, but you seem to only want to consolidate your dogmatic truth.

Re-read your replies JDP, your train of thought is self defeating for someone looking for truth.

You are not alone, there are approximately 7 billion others who would agree with you; I used to be one.

Ghislain

On the contrary, my train of thought is purely empirical, the only sure way to truth when it comes to the physical reality we live in. I don't subscribe to any theories or speculations. To me they are all uncertain (some less than others, if the empirical evidence happens to support some more than others), subjective and therefore liable to change sooner or later (and history proves this to be right), while empirical facts remain the same until the end of the world.

JDP
01-03-2016, 10:43 AM
So it is a blind following? If not belief then "blind trust". When I say blind I guess it can be viewed as a choice without choice.

:cool:

Not "blind", but the only "following" that is available. You follow it too, even if you don't want to admit it too openly. But the fact that you recognized that you can't defy gravity, speeding bullets, explosions, etc. confirms how conscious you really are that you too are subject to the same physical realities as everyone else.

Awani
01-03-2016, 03:29 PM
But the fact that you recognized that you can't defy gravity, speeding bullets, explosions, etc. confirms how conscious you really are that you too are subject to the same physical realities as everyone else.

No it doesn't. It just proves I get your point, but that you don't get mine.


Not "blind", but the only "following" that is available.

To your knowledge i.e. the only version available that you can put your faith in... because as you have admitted you have no facts of any other reality?

:cool:

JDP
01-04-2016, 07:59 AM
No it doesn't. It just proves I get your point, but that you don't get mine.

I do get it, but your point is easily proven wrong. Beliefs and thoughts do not alter our reality. If they did, reality would keep on changing at each person's whim & fancy. It does not. The same gravity that pulls me down is the exact same one that pulls you down too. No amount of thinking it does not won't alter the fact.


To your knowledge i.e. the only version available that you can put your faith in... because as you have admitted you have no facts of any other reality?

:cool:

There is no evidence for other realities, so we have to go by the one we know of and have plenty of evidence on. When you discover any other reality make sure to let us know what evidence you have for it. And I mean more than just your word for it. Show us a reality where gravity does not apply, for example. A place in the world where you can jump off of a cliff and instead of going straight down you miraculously float around.

Ghislain
01-04-2016, 12:05 PM
Dev read Matthew 7:6

Ghislain

Awani
01-04-2016, 03:39 PM
Beliefs and thoughts do not alter our reality. If they did, reality would keep on changing at each person's whim & fancy. It does not. The same gravity that pulls me down is the exact same one that pulls you down too. No amount of thinking it does not won't alter the fact.

I never said it did... not in the way you are looking at it. Could be I explained poorly. Reality is more than physical facts. Life is not about matter. Matter does not matter as much as other aspects of life. It comes down to how you view reality: as an experience or as a room with a chair.


Dev read Matthew 7:6

;)


There is no evidence for other realities, so we have to go by the one we know of and have plenty of evidence on.

In other words: to your knowledge i.e. the only version available that you can put your faith in... because as you have admitted you have no facts of any other reality?

:cool:

JDP
01-04-2016, 06:08 PM
I never said it did... not in the way you are looking at it. Could be I explained poorly. Reality is more than physical facts. Life is not about matter. Matter does not matter as much as other aspects of life. It comes down to how you view reality: as an experience or as a room with a chair.

Facts are about matter, which can be examined and evidence proven or unproven. What you call "experience" is the subjective part, which may be very different from one observer to another, and what you call "a room with a chair" are the observable facts, the actual reality that is the same for all observers. We must clearly distinguish between the two because they most certainly are not the same.



In other words: to your knowledge i.e. the only version available that you can put your faith in... because as you have admitted you have no facts of any other reality?

But neither do you. You can't prove anything about any other reality other than the one you and I share in common.

Awani
01-04-2016, 06:35 PM
But neither do you. You can't prove anything about any other reality other than the one you and I share in common.

Exatcly. So fact is belief.

In my opinion we finally agree. LOL! Phew.

:cool:

JDP
01-04-2016, 06:41 PM
Exatcly. So fact is belief.

In my opinion we finally agree. LOL! Phew.

:cool:

No, you keep missing the point. It is not dependent on "belief", but independent from it. Reality are the bare facts that are the same for all observers. You may believe that green little aliens from Mars put the chair in the room of the above example, and I may think that it was actually pink elephants that put it there, but the room with the chair will be exactly the same for both of us, no matter how we choose to interpret what happened for it to be there.

Awani
01-04-2016, 10:11 PM
Well I still think we are on the same page now, even if its not clear for everyone involved. ;)

:cool: