all of us but is in everything. So the mind exercise of there being no
external observer was only that...a game.
On May 5, 11:07 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> All matter is aware of itself albeit in a rudimentary manner and not
> like animate life-forms , even rocks are aware but that awareness is
> so rudimentary as to be incomprehensible to us. And so Orn everything
> exists even without an external observer.
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 10:13 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 least a little different...you suggest that
> >> > time will exist w/o people. This too, on one level is correct;
> >> > however, I suggest that the very idea of time is found only within
> >> > human thinking. No humans, no concept of time. Yes, one can *guess*
> >> > that things will continue to come and go...but the very idea of 'time'
> >> > just doesn't exist without a mind. The same is true for all other
> >> > ideas: planet, chin, hairs (gray or black), time, universe, mirror,
> >> > science, years, numbers, people...even "Lee" is but a concept thought
> >> > about. No thinking, no "Lee" (or any of the other things listed).
>
> >> > On May 3, 5:56 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > That's along the lines of the questions asked myself before deciding
> >> > > on my stance.
>
> >> > > Time would go by if there was nobody there to percive it doing so.
> >> > > Indeed science would have the time pass since our universe started as
> >> > > several billion years.
>
> >> > > When I look in the mirror I can see that time has passed, in the new
> >> > > lines in my face, in the ever increasing grey hairs on my head and on
> >> > > my chin.
>
> >> > > I don't understand this 'there is no time' though OM, care to explian
> >> > > that one?
>
> >> > > On May 3, 1:40 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > TTS, I suggest that this isn't an either/or issue. Time as we perceive
> >> > > > it can be both. While in any ultimate sense, there is no time most of
> >> > > > us do wear watches and/or use clocks. It is a matter of level of
> >> > > > perception and we are able to perceive from more than one level at a
> >> > > > time.
>
> >> > > > On May 3, 12:55 am, the taoist shaman <bryan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > is time real or an illusion created by change ? if indeed time is an
> >> > > > > illusion created by change shurely this must have meaning, some
> >> > > > > ramification on , at the least, the way we preceive ourselves and our
> >> > > > > universe to which we are a part . if so what is the effect of this
> >> > > > > altered preception?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment