are sure that such a thing exists, we see it's effects all around us
and can apply sciences to measure it. Like time we can see the
effects of it. Now I'll not discount the idea that the effects of
time may be down to something else entirly…" – Lee
True that we don't know how gravity works. I'll add that we don't know
what it is either…even though there is a predictable 'effect'. So, not
knowing what a thing is nor how it works how do we know that it
exists? Here I'll use the understanding of the term 'exists' as being
something that the physical senses see/feel/hear etc. We don't see
'it' (gravity). We only see some predictable movement and that
movement applies to about everything so in this sense it is not unique…
let alone a unique 'thing'. Now, one need not agree with this of
course; however, if not, it would appear congruent to me that one
could say that god 'exists' in the same way. . . something that I
suggest (in most cases) is but a belief…not any objective 'existence'.
"…The thing with imagining enternity or existing within it, is that
it
is just imaginagtion isn't it…" - Lee
Yes Lee, if one merely imagines it…it is. However, are you suggesting
that we do not live in eternity? That eternity doesn't 'exist'? These
are all parts of the examination I suggest.
On May 4, 5:02 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:
> Hey OM.
>
> I guess what we are talking about are forces. I see that perhaps you
> do not count time a s force, or that perhaps our understanding of what
> time is must be constrained by the type of being we are.
>
> Yes I agree that the reality maynot be wholey how we percive it to be,
> as you know this has been my stance for a long while now.
>
> Back to forces though. We still don't know how gravity works, but we
> are sure that such a thing exists, we see it's effects all around us
> and can apply sciences to measure it. Like time we can see the
> effects of it. Now I'll not discount the idea that the effects of
> time may be down to something else entirly.
>
> The thing with imagining enternity or existing within it, is that it
> is just imaginagtion isn't it. I can also imagine that I'll a tall
> man with broad shoulders, but the reality of the situation is I am
> not.
>
> On May 4, 10:34 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lee, I sense that what we perceive as being 'external' - energy and
> > movement - is that. However, beyond this, our notions of what things
> > are...even the letters and associated words for SETI... only exist in
> > thought...no where else.
>
> > As an aside, for those who may have missed it, SETI has been defunded.
>
> > And, no, I didn't miss your caveat. I just disagree and suspect that
> > having thought about what one thinks is real, which does include the
> > concept of time, all one's lifetime...the notion of time becomes so
> > ingrained in one's world view that it is assumed to be an actual thing
> > rather than merely a thought.
>
> > Yes, when one *thinks* about such things, they appear to be real. The
> > operative words here are "appears to be". As a mental exercise Lee,
> > I'll ask you to do your very best to imagine existing in
> > eternity...that which has no beginning and no end.
>
> > Got the vision?.....from this perspective (the actual 'reality'), time
> > just is meaningless... especially if one also imagines no perceiver(s)
> > involved anywhere at all.
>
> > On the other hand, I do know that there is life and that we, as human
> > beings do think and project our understandings upon the fabric of what
> > we project as being 'external' to ourselves. I don't deny this...it is
> > obvious that we do. It's just that what we project comes from mind and
> > not from whatever is actually there. What is actually there is not
> > what we perceives as time...it isn't color (except clear light as TTS
> > notes...something I've been contemplating for years now...something
> > that to the rational/thinking mind just can't be grasped)...it isn't
> > SETI...it isn't shape...it isn't anything that human senses perceive
> > and then apply some sort of belief about what is being
> > perceived...based upon previously attached beliefs. We don't in our
> > everyday mode perceive reality as it actually is. We do use
> > conventions mind agrees upon...for practicality's sake...its just that
> > in any ultimate sense, these conventions are nothing more than
> > that...they are not what is actually there. Remove the observer (and
> > associated senses) and what exists? Get it? No thinking...no
> > thoughts...no concepts...no words...no notions of reality....
>
> > No, this isn't the conventional approach to things ontological nor
> > epistemological....yet, the exercise can be of enormous value in my
> > experience. No, I'm not attempting to impose a belief system upon you
> > or anyone else...in fact, it is almost like a diminution of belief if
> > anything at all!
>
> > So, yes, how does one think about not thinking!!!
>
> > Well...we have gone down this road quite often Lee...and you stop
> > after only a couple of paces which is fine.
>
> > For me, I hunger to know beyond my own set of beliefs...which are
> > almost all things that I've attached to long ago and were formed based
> > upon words...and, not having created those words...there is little
> > that I actually know associated with these terms fed to me by others.
>
> > To do this search, deconstruction [of beliefs] seems to be one method.
> > It isn't a road often traveled nor does it seem to be for everyone. So
> > be it!
>
> > On May 4, 1:47 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Hey Om,
>
> > > Don't be shocked mate you might have missed this bit:
>
> > > ' I must though disagree with you about concepts not existing without
> > > somebody to concive of them. Sure I could probably think of a concept
> > > or two where this is applicable, time though is not one of them.'
>
> > > I like you exanples OM, but we know in a scientific way what colours
> > > are, and yes without the eyes to sense them, they still exist. The
> > > same with sound waves, yes of course with out the ears to hear and the
> > > brain to make sense of them, we can ask do they really exist, but the
> > > answer must be yes.
>
> > > Think of it like this. SETI have been listening to radio waves from
> > > space for many years now, prior to SETI being setup, where these radio
> > > signals simply not there? Yes of course they where, we just didn't
> > > have the now how to listen to them.
>
> > > There is a valid reason why we call somethings inventions and others
> > > discoverys.
>
> > > I'm trying hard to Grok yoru meaning but you know that old fashioned
> > > reasoning keeps interfearing.
>
> > > On May 4, 5:43 am, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "…Naaaa I do not think that is what you are saying. " – Lee
>
> > > > Lee, in many ways, it is exactly what I'm saying.
>
> > > > First, a few examples: Color – we perceive color(s)…and different
> > > > people perceive colors differently for one another too. And I'm not
> > > > even thinking about the color blind nor the totally blind here. With
> > > > no human brain, what we know as color just will not exist. There may
> > > > be some sort of vibration/movement in the universe but there will be
> > > > no color because it takes a human being to see them. Please don't add
> > > > other life forms to the equation, the principle is the same. No
> > > > perceiver, no color.
>
> > > > That is only one thing. How about country music? Again, while there
> > > > may be vibrations/movement, without a person to 'translate' these
> > > > vibrations into what we call country music, there just isn't any such
> > > > thing. It is a concept (country music) and doesn't exist without mind.
>
> > > > I really was shocked when you said that you disagreed with me about
> > > > concepts not existing without a perceiver/thinker! Just how could say
> > > > a concept of 'freedom' exist without mind? It just doesn't.
>
> > > > Adding a little more, when you bring in 'labels', yes, all concepts/
> > > > words (labels) are subjective and without mind they just don't exist.
> > > > Even when there *is* mind things like say the earth can be
> > > > deconstructed into atoms and/or molecules etc…stuff that is not what
> > > > we think about as being the planet. I haven't gone into this very
> > > > deeply but hope you grok.
>
> > > > On May 3, 9:36 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Hahahah OM old chap, you and I have been round and around on manny
> > > > > matters, as you say though this is just fine.
>
> > > > > Yes of course the perception of time is a construct of human thought,
> > > > > it is as I say the way we measure decay.
>
> > > > > Yes of course if we do not project time upon the eternity then time
> > > > > cease to have any meaning.
>
> > > > > Yet all that we know is contained in the universe and it is clear that
> > > > > within this universe time exists independant of human thought.
>
> > > > > All that is physical, all that is matter is subject to decay at a
> > > > > certian rate, this is time working.
>
> > > > > Do you belive then that whatever is apart from the universe does not
> > > > > come under the juristriction of time? Are you saying that this thing
> > > > > we call God in some places is not subject to time, and that this is
> > > > > also true of anything not composed of matter but spirit instead? If
> > > > > so then obviously I agree.
>
> > > > > I must though disagree with you about concepts not existing without
> > > > > somebody to concive of them. Sure I could probably think of a concept
> > > > > or two where this is applicable, time though isnot one of them.
>
> > > > > Before the Earth cooled down enough for life to start here a period of
> > > > > time had passed, and although nobody was there to measure how much
> > > > > time had passed, we can now do just that.
>
> > > > > Time then like light, exists independant of a mind to think of it. In
> > > > > fact are not all concepts our striving to understand what it is we
> > > > > sense around us? There must then be forces to sense for us tho strive
> > > > > to understand. Language is just labels we attach to things to enable
> > > > > us to communicate about them. Are you really saying these things
> > > > > would not exist if there where no mouths to utter the labels? Naaaa I
> > > > > do not think that is what you are saying.
>
> > > > > On May 3, 2:09 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Lee, we've gone round and round about 'no-time' on more than one
> > > > > > occasion and in different forums.
>
> > > > > > So, I have little hope in making this notion acceptable to you which
> > > > > > is just fine.
>
> > > > > > This can be approached on many levels. One is when one is talking
> > > > > > about how long things exist, yes, all things have a beginning and an
> > > > > > end. *Things*...such as planets, people, thoughts etc.
>
> > > > > > Yet, if for just a moment we don't project this temporariness upon the
> > > > > > eternity which is obvious to many, when one is in eternity, time just
> > > > > > doesn't have any meaning at all. No beginning - No end.
>
> > > > > > On a different level...at
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment