|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: how do you draw conclusions about what is real and what is imaginary or impossible? [Re: redgreenvines]
#26964061 - 10/01/20 02:53 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: when Einstein said that space and time as we experience them are illusions, he did not mean what is proposed in this big toe.
He meant that we have convinced ourselves that aspects of space and time are fixed while they are actually relative. He meant that in a fundamental way. illusion does not mean completely illusory or simulated. this taken out of context .....
Sounds about right
. Also Hoffman ignores the fundamental issue, that Buddha addressed 2500 years ago: What about the reality, or what about our notions of what "the self" or "self" is?
. I will not repeat what is easily found on the net, or what has been posted on this subject here dozens of times already. I just wish to point out that if we are not what/who we think we are, then the whole question of what 'the reality' is that THIS self perceives, would seem to be sort of moot. . That no one has apparently ever pointed this out to him seems strange. Then again maybe not, as he would most likely just resent it, as he wants to show he can both answer these questions ( about consciousness, evolution, & reality) for the first time and do so mathematically. . Never-the-less I like his desktop metaphor, explanation of fitness, and beetle example.
|
Warrk



Registered: 06/02/17
Posts: 1,623
|
Re: how do you draw conclusions about what is real and what is imaginary or impossible? [Re: laughingdog]
#26964705 - 10/01/20 08:14 PM (3 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That's an interesting background redgreenvines. I have a similar education history in the biological sciences with a smattering of physics and mathematics undergraduate courses thrown in for the thrill of it, then went on to do a PhD.
I want to go back to this statement of yours:
Quote:
redgreenvines said: Also by declaring that the simulation is beyond understanding, you and he are closing off science and writing a new bible in which you use "SIM" as a nonbinary pronoun for "GOD".
This is not what Campbell is on about, he is not trying to create a new cult and for people to have faith in his theory. Instead he urges us all to be skeptical yet to remain open-minded, and to test things out ourselves. This theory is not about blind faith.
|
|