I reviewed my last few posts and I do not see ANYTHING made personal. Please point it out to me. If you took something personal, I would like to know what it was.

That is personal, but I let that one slide. You could have easily cited a source and labeled it as common scientific knowledge. I then could refute it, but saying that real "fillintheblankhere" know whatever it is your trying to argue is called an Ad hominem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

This entire post is personal. What I can and cannot do or understand is an Ad hominem attack not a real argument. If you have a point make it without regard to me and my capabilities, and whether I am lost just becuase I do not agree.

Again for reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Most reasonable people will agree that a dream is non-physical. If you dream that you have been knifed, when you wake up, you will not (normally) have knife wounds on your body. A non physical dream knife or "imaginary" weapon cannot normally harm a physical body because it is non-physical.

(I say 'not normally' because there have been some freak cases on record where a non-physical creature, unseen by witnesses, did (apparently)inflict visible wounds on a person.)

Also, when doing astral projections, the astral form cannot interact with physical forms or matter or physical bodies. If an astral body tried to pick up a physical object their hand would pass right through it as if they were a ghost.

Physical space and time are different from astral space and time. All space and time depend upon the material or forms that exit at that frequency.

Well I am sorry you took this personal. I just tell it like I see it. It is just my opinion. You should not take it personal.

Its not a matter of how one takes it, it is an ad hominem.
I am asking you, and I might add nicely, to not engage in ad hominem attacks of any kind.

Physical: That which physically interacts at a specific density.

Non-Physical: That which exists and interacts at a non-physical density. (Astral worlds, dream worlds, mental worlds, and other mind worlds.)

There are many densities.

I agree

I don’t know quite how to answer that.

How can you characterize postulation? How can you characterize the interaction between the “postulator” and the “postulatee”. A thing is is when/because it is postulated that it is. The postulate is what makes it so. A postulator postulates and so a thing is postulated. That’s about all there is to it.

I guess you could say that the above is a characterization of postulating. If so, then that is all the characterization that is possible.

Hope that answers the question. If not, please expound on the question.

Truth by any definition is simply the perception of reality in the individual

Jeremy wrote to me earlier... without answering my question...



Am not!



I know that the mind and brain are one.

I know where ideas are formed... the brain.

I know where the content of those ideas come from...observation and the inference thereof.

Can you tell me what physically constitutes a mental understanding?

I don't know why you (Creative and Jeromy) should argue about anything as you are both so grounded in the physical, and you are both a couple of brains comparing notes or swapping data and trying to find a common meaning for the words you use.

If you two would just agree to adhere strictly to a common dictionary definition of words, you would have to agree on everything.

Tell me this:

We know that skin and tissue and cells can be kept alive after a person dies, is this also true with brain matter? If so, do you know of any brains or brain matter that has been kept alive? If this is possible do you think this brain matter could have an idea or actually think?

Perhaps when science perfects their mind reading technology they will be able to find out if a mind and a brain are the same thing. I don't think they are. I don't think there is enough real evidence to prove that they are.

Welcome, Hazy!

Great 1st post!

I've said that many times myself. I agree.

I mean...

I believe that I know...



Dammit!

That's exactly the correct way to phrase it.

Hmmmmmm.

From my perspective, there is virtually no difference between "knowing" and "being certain". "Knowledge" and "certainty" are, for all practical purposes, synonymous.

(Note: This is different from "knowledge" in the sense of "data" or "information".)

So I don't have any problem with you sayng "I know _____" - even if you yourself do

Since Scientific theories are famous for having exclusions, in conclusion, I'd like to suggest a Unified Definition, if I may:

"That which is Real (physical, true -- X for short) must interruct!
(Exclusion: UNLESS "X" IS NON-PHYSICAL! ! !)

____________ CONTRADICTION__________

Since Truth = Perception of Reality -- and we all know how tricky our perception may be -- it follows that
truth may not necessarily be Real (Unless we agree upon some definition)

Sky,

the earth was flat in 1200

was it true because it was the public mind set

or just a misconception of the reality because of the falsehood