100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Truth vs. Bull**** | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 03:58 PM
|
|
Creativesoul said: Actuality can and has been logically proven to exist… I have no disagreement with anything you’ve said in that post. But it only addressed the anecdotal comment, not the questions at issue. So I’m still looking for a concise answer to this: 1) Given an observation, is it possible to determine if it is of the “real/actual/universal” reality or the “false/fake/personal” reality? 2) If so, how? I would ask you to do the same with reincarnation. What Skyhook is looking for here is what he has been saying all along. If so, How? The answer is "By agreement." The actual reality real/actual/universe is "determined" by (human) agreement to be added to "human knowledge." The Reality you refer to is described according to human observation. It is not described according to the observations of a worm or a rock or a mole. It may be the same environment with the same vibrations and the same objects but it is interpreted by many different observers. jb Tribo: (It has nothing to do with a belief in reincarnation.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 04:19 PM
|
|
Creative wrote,
The very notion necessitates a subject which is capable of observing and an object to observe. Try describing "observer" as any thing that can sense and respond or be the effect of a vibration or frequency from any other thing, no matter how slight. If you are going to go beyond (before) the existence of a human observer in describing reality you must redefine what an observer was when humans were not present. To say that there were no observers before humans existed on the planet is delusional. You cannot define and observer as human and then begin to describe what reality was like before these observers existed from their point of observation because you cannot send a human observer back in time to observe it. (light is vibration, sound is vibration, heat is vibration) If you heat gold does it not respond by melting? A stone has its own field and frequency which allows you to see and touch it and pick it up and throw it at a heretic.  Observation is simply defined as the ability to sense a vibration or frequency and respond. You do not need to have any "thinking" capabilities in order to observe. Most lower life forms respond mostly to internal programing acquired during their process of evolution through their being able to sense "things" other than themselves. If you see a rock it is because it gives off a frequency and vibrations and it reflects light that is within your range of observation. Humans cannot see all light that exists nor can they here all sounds that are made with their given sensory organs. That does not mean that this light and this sound does not exist. Humans have since created technology to see and hear light and sound that is beyond their scope of observation. How much more of this reality is beyond their scope of observation? jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 04:39 PM
|
|
I keep seeing constant mention of "real" reality and "actual" reality and how it is not always what we perceive it to be. But if it's not what we perceive it to be, then what is it? And more importantly, how would we know if it was the "real/actual reality" even if we did perceive it? How does one differentiate between "real/actual" reality and "false" reality? I'm just not seeing any practical difference between this alleged "real/actual reality" and any other postulated entity such as "god" or "spirit" or "thought". There is no way to prove the existence of any of them. Sky; I was watching an advertisement for a sound system that sends sound around the observer from all directions. (Surround sound) with two speakers. This kind of sound system can enhance the reality of the movie you are watching. Together with giant high definition television screens the movie you are watching can be very impressive on the mind. The subconscious mind, like a computer, is prone to accept programing easily and it does not easily separate "reality" from false experiences. There are many humans who have gotten so involved in daytime television soap operas that they believe the characters in the show are real people in their own personal lives. This happens more often than you might think. Now, with high definition television and surround sound it is going to be easier for people's subconscious to accept what they are "seeing" as a real experience. The next step in fake realities will probably be surround theaters, and virtual reality environments where sensors are attached to the body to convince the mind that they are really in this reality. It may eventually only require you to wear a face mask and attach something to your brain to be able to feel and see a new three dimensional world. Experiences in these virtual worlds for some people will become real to them and their minds will not be able to separate their real reality from their play reality. The subconsciouses mind does not care about agreement. It only cares about its own personal determined experience and reality. (Heck you could be hooked up to one right now that suspends or extends the perception of time and allows you to live an entire life in 30 minutes.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YOUVE GOT TO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS AND TO MUCH tv SHOWS, SCIENCE FICTION HAHAHA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The observer questions have been clearly answered as well as the distinction between actuality and personal truth(reality)...
Sky... So I’m still looking for a concise answer to this: 1) Given an observation, is it possible to determine if it is of the “real/actual/universal” reality or the “false/fake/personal” reality? 2) If so, how? Observations are always of actuality, it is only the interpretations of that which is being observed that are of reality(personal truth). Personal truth(reality) equates to individual interpretation of actuality. The distinction is key in understanding that our personal truth is not actuality. To recognize the fact that we, as humans, are reactive creatures only is to hold the essence of humanity in your constitutional thought. Whether a response is a result from an accurate interpretation of actuality or not is not in question. Personal actions are completely determined by one's personal truthes. This is a direct consequence of the fact that actuality and personal truth(reality) are not the same thing. The best one can hope for is to understand themselves. The inward journey required begins with the recognition of our personal agreements, those things which constitute the foundation of what we think and why. They dictate our response(s) to different propositions and considerations. Identifying the sources of our personal truth, whether it be about ourselves or something external is paramount in the discovery of who we are and why. When one better understands themself, one gains an abstract sense of understanding others as well. This comes directly through the increased clarity of what it is that is being perceived and why. To that extent our personal truth is but one of many determining factors in that which we experience. We do not determine actuality, nor can we completely determine our personal truth. However, hopefully somewhere throughout our experience, we can obtain some form of transitional truth which woud allow us to see ourselves for who we are, while in this pursuit of human knowledge. Thanks to all who have participated... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The observer questions have been clearly answered as well as the distinction between actuality and personal truth(reality)... Sky... So I’m still looking for a concise answer to this: 1) Given an observation, is it possible to determine if it is of the “real/actual/universal” reality or the “false/fake/personal” reality? 2) If so, how? Observations are always of actuality, it is only the interpretations of that which is being observed that are of reality(personal truth). Personal truth(reality) equates to individual interpretation of actuality. The distinction is key in understanding that our personal truth is not actuality. To recognize the fact that we, as humans, are reactive creatures only is to hold the essence of humanity in your constitutional thought. Whether a response is a result from an accurate interpretation of actuality or not is not in question. Personal actions are completely determined by one's personal truthes. This is a direct consequence of the fact that actuality and personal truth(reality) are not the same thing. The best one can hope for is to understand themselves. The inward journey required begins with the recognition of our personal agreements, those things which constitute the foundation of what we think and why. They dictate our response(s) to different propositions and considerations. Identifying the sources of our personal truth, whether it be about ourselves or something external is paramount in the discovery of who we are and why. When one better understands themself, one gains an abstract sense of understanding others as well. This comes directly through the increased clarity of what it is that is being perceived and why. To that extent our personal truth is but one of many determining factors in that which we experience. We do not determine actuality, nor can we completely determine our personal truth. However, hopefully somewhere throughout our experience, we can obtain some form of transitional truth which woud allow us to see ourselves for who we are, while in this pursuit of human knowledge. Thanks to all who have participated... nicely stated 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 05:05 PM
|
|
YOUVE GOT TO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS AND TO MUCH tv SHOWS, SCIENCE FICTION HAHAHA Actually I don't have enough time. I just do everything at once.   Last night I was up until 3:00 a.m. painting. I finished a painting of Humphrey Bogart. While I was painting, I watched t.v. and watched the monitor that checks on my Dad. For an occasional break, I will check the computer if I am involved in a conversation. My dream is a giant flat screen high definition surround sound screen that hooks into my computer to use as a computer screen. Wow... I'd never leave my house again. LOL I was up at 6:00 a.m. I did get to take a nap today though, thank goodness.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
YOUVE GOT TO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS AND TO MUCH tv SHOWS, SCIENCE FICTION HAHAHA Actually I don't have enough time. I just do everything at once. Last night I was up until 3:00 a.m. painting. I finished a painting of Humphrey Bogart. While I was painting, I watched t.v. and watched the monitor that checks on my Dad. For an occasional break, I will check the computer if I am involved in a conversation. My dream is a giant flat screen high definition surround sound screen that hooks into my computer to use as a computer screen. Wow... I'd never leave my house again. LOL I was up at 6:00 a.m. I did get to take a nap today though, thank goodness. WOW - neat!! well youll have to marry abra i cant afford that set up. ill just wither away in the filipines with my standard TV set up. but you can come visit if you get bored -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 08:27 PM
|
|
In my reality, marriage is a sin. It is a sell out. It is a contract with THE STATE. THE STATE is evil, corrupt and in league with SATAN. (Satan represents the Dragon, the draconian mindset.) They are the opponents to humans in the galaxy game.
But then, that's just my reality. I'm delusional apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my reality, marriage is a sin. It is a sell out. It is a contract with THE STATE. THE STATE is evil, corrupt and in league with SATAN. (Satan represents the Dragon, the draconian mindset.) They are the opponents to humans in the galaxy game. But then, that's just my reality. I'm delusional apparently. In my reality, two people not being able to get along and love each other is a sin. you dont need a contract for loving someone and having or wanting to spend your life together, that is mans law not the law of love, natural law supercedes mans law - common law rules!! Why would the dracs want marriage? to increase there food supply? Babies are gonna be born whether married or not. its just the facts of life or should i say the accepted reality of the many?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 08:59 PM
|
|
In my reality, marriage is a sin. It is a sell out. It is a contract with THE STATE. THE STATE is evil, corrupt and in league with SATAN. (Satan represents the Dragon, the draconian mindset.) They are the opponents to humans in the galaxy game. But then, that's just my reality. I'm delusional apparently. In my reality, two people not being able to get along and love each other is a sin. you dont need a contract for loving someone and having or wanting to spend your life together, that is mans law not the law of love, natural law supercedes mans law - common law rules!! Why would the dracs want marriage? to increase there food supply? Babies are gonna be born whether married or not. its just the facts of life or should i say the accepted reality of the many? I am glad you asked that question. Of course I have a theory. But I won't post it here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/15/08 08:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 11/15/08 11:20 PM
|
|
The observer questions have been clearly answered as well as the distinction between actuality and personal truth(reality)... Sky... So I’m still looking for a concise answer to this: 1) Given an observation, is it possible to determine if it is of the “real/actual/universal” reality or the “false/fake/personal” reality? 2) If so, how? Observations are always of actuality, it is only the interpretations of that which is being observed that are of reality(personal truth). Personal truth(reality) equates to individual interpretation of actuality. The distinction is key in understanding that our personal truth is not actuality. To recognize the fact that we, as humans, are reactive creatures only is to hold the essence of humanity in your constitutional thought. Whether a response is a result from an accurate interpretation of actuality or not is not in question. Personal actions are completely determined by one's personal truthes. This is a direct consequence of the fact that actuality and personal truth(reality) are not the same thing. The best one can hope for is to understand themselves. The inward journey required begins with the recognition of our personal agreements, those things which constitute the foundation of what we think and why. They dictate our response(s) to different propositions and considerations. Identifying the sources of our personal truth, whether it be about ourselves or something external is paramount in the discovery of who we are and why. When one better understands themself, one gains an abstract sense of understanding others as well. This comes directly through the increased clarity of what it is that is being perceived and why. To that extent our personal truth is but one of many determining factors in that which we experience. We do not determine actuality, nor can we completely determine our personal truth. However, hopefully somewhere throughout our experience, we can obtain some form of transitional truth which woud allow us to see ourselves for who we are, while in this pursuit of human knowledge. Thanks to all who have participated... Ok, so are you going to offer the concise answer I asked for? And I completely disagree with this: ...we, as humans, are reactive creatures only...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/16/08 07:27 AM
|
|
And I completely disagree with this: ...we, as humans, are reactive creatures only... I disagree also, that we as humans are reactive creatures only. How depressing, negative and droll. To "react" to something is natural and programed. It does not require much conscious thought. It is also considered being the "effect" rather than being "cause." To be cause, you have to be conscious and purposeful in your thoughts and actions. You are more aware of what you are doing and thinking. You are using your conscious will and may be acting against your reactive instincts. That is being positive. In books about the power of positive thinking and action, if you are "negative" you are being the "effect" of things. When you are self directed and purposeful and consciously aware of your thoughts and actions, you are cause. That is positive. You are in control of your life. When you are effected by the weather, your spouse's bad mood, and other events in your environment and you react in a common and negative way, you are being effect. That is negative. You are not in control of your life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so are you going to offer the concise answer I asked for? I answered Sky, very concisely. The fact that actuality is not personal truth answers all that you ask. We do not, cannot, determine actuality. And I completely disagree with this: ...we, as humans, are reactive creatures only... You are allowed to disagree, I have no problem acknowledging that opinions differ according to individual personal truth. I also acknowledge the fact that personal truth is not actuality. All human action is but a reaction, either to direct physical stimulus or to our thought processes, which are completely based upon experience. Why does one do anything? As I stated already, the acknowledgment of this fact is to hold the essence of humanity in your constitutional thought. Actuality passes no judgement, humans do... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 11/16/08 12:47 PM
|
|
Ok, so are you going to offer the concise answer I asked for? We do not, cannot, determine actuality.Now I can go on to my conclusion. Since actuality cannot be determined, one can only think and speak of it in an abstract or theoretical or hypothetical sense. It really has no practical use at all, other than as an interesting topic of discussion or debate that can never be resolved. And because of that, it seems to me that "actuality" would, per the thread topic, have to come under the heading of "Bull***".  Unless, of course, the OP is speaking of "truth" in the philosophical sense as in Plato's Cave where truth is an unobservable, perfect, purely mental construct, and bull**** is the imperfect, material manifestation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so are you going to offer the concise answer I asked for? We do not, cannot, determine actuality.Now I can go on to my conclusion. Since actuality cannot be determined, one can only think and speak of it in an abstract or theoretical or hypothetical sense. It really has no practical use at all, other than as an interesting topic of discussion or debate that can never be resolved. And because of that, it seems to me that "actuality" would, per the thread topic, have to come under the heading of "Bull***". Unless, of course, the OP is speaking of "truth" in the philosophical sense as in Plato's Cave where truth is an unobservable, perfect, purely mental construct, and bull**** is the imperfect, material manifestation. So Creative's "actuality" is hypothetical because if we cannot determine it, then it cannot be known and agreed upon. Right? If this "actuality" is meant to be the "ultimate actual reality" (truth for all) and no one can determine it or agree upon it completely, then what use is it? You may as well be claiming to have proof of God. jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 11/16/08 01:54 PM
|
|
Since actuality cannot be determined, one can only think and speak of it in an abstract or theoretical or hypothetical sense. It really has no practical use at all, other than as an interesting topic of discussion or debate that can never be resolved. Come on Sky, you'll have to do better than this. You have completely confused the meanings of the terms determine and create. Once again you have created your own straw man condition upon which your entire argument hangs. Upon a painted hook one can only hang a painted argument. Allow me to clear up your misrepresentation to yourself to you. The fact that we do not and cannot determine actuality, is not to say that it does not exist. We have already determined that it exists. It is to say that we do not determine the content of it's existence, which is irrefutable. It has already been scientifically and logically proven to be true. You are arguing with your own personal truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 11/16/08 02:54 PM
|
|
Since actuality cannot be determined, one can only think and speak of it in an abstract or theoretical or hypothetical sense. It really has no practical use at all, other than as an interesting topic of discussion or debate that can never be resolved. Come on Sky, you'll have to do better than this.You have completely confused the meanings of the terms determine and create. Once again you have created your own straw man condition upon which your entire argument hangs. You are the one who said actuality cannot be determined. And I didn't use the term "create", you did. So get the straw out from under your own hat. Allow me to clear up your misrepresentation to yourself to you. Since they are actually your misrepresentation to me, yes I will allow you to attempt to clear them up. You are arguing with your own personal truth. Quite the contrary, it is your personal truth and I'm not even arguing with it. I'm just trying to understand it. The fact that we do not and cannot determine actuality, is not to say that it does not exist. We have already determined that it exists. It is to say that we do not determine the content of it's existence, which is irrefutable. It has already been scientifically and logically proven to be true. Ok so let me get this straight. You're saying that we can determine that actuality exists, but we cannot determine it's content. Is that right? Also, two other confusions I have. You said "It is to say that we do not determine the content of it's existence, which is irrefutable." 1) I'm unsure of the referent for the pronoun "It" at the beginning of that sentence. What does "It" refer to? Or is "It is to say that" simply an idiomatic or rhetorical phrase? 2) I'm also unsure of the referent for "which" in the last phrase. Are you saying that "it's existence" is irrefutable, or "we do not determine the content" is irrefutable? Or both? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/16/08 03:19 PM
|
|
Creative said:
The fact that we do not and cannot determine actuality, is not to say that it does not exist. We have already determined that it exists. It is to say that we do not determine the content of it's existence, which is irrefutable. It has already been scientifically and logically proven to be true. You are arguing with your own personal truth. Let me see if I am understanding this. 1. "We cannot determine actuality." means: (We can't "decide" what is real or: we are not responsible for its creation?) ---- (I disagree, I decide what is 'real' all the time, so I guess that this is just your opinion.) 2. "..but that is not to say that it does not exist." Means: (I'm not saying that IT (whatever it is) does not exist. IE: Therefore, SOMETHING exists.....that is irrefutable.) Therefore all you are saying, Creative, is that scientifically and logically it has been irrefutably proven that SOMETHING exists. (Hey I could have told you that!)) It is true that something exists. (I agree. Finally something that we can agree on 100%.) "...It is to say that we do not determine the content of it's existence;" So you are are either saying that you do not know (can't determine the content) or that you are not responsible for the creation or manifestation of the content. 1.)--So all this time all you are trying to say is that you do not believe that we create our own reality or that we are in any way responsible for creating or manifesting our reality. 2.)--Or you are saying that we know something exists, we just don't know what it is. So which is it, one or two? jb |
|
|
|
|
