|
 deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
 Re: the real you?  [Re: Veritas]
#8903426 - 09/09/08 06:03 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Can you show me where I made that claim?
(Sure it was brought up, but it was never claimed as fact)
|
 Boots
Disenchanted
Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 4 months
|
|
Me and the 'real me' is just a difference in perception. To me, I might be honest, but to others, I might be manipulative. Basically, you don't shift into the 'real you' or anything like that. It's just other people have a better chance at accurately describing you (let's say, for personality tests) than yourself.
|
Sleepwalker
Overshoes
Registered: 05/07/08
Posts: 5,503
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deCypher]
#8903609 - 09/09/08 06:40 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Cypher said:
Yep. But again, why are you biased in favor of calling it energy? Why not matter? They're simply different forms of the same thing--matter is presumably just a different frequency of vibration than energy.
Like saying water vapor is the truest form H20 takes on. 
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb
Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 38,169
|
|
matter is not exactly a different frequency of vibration, it is a persistently formed and localized energy - at a sub-atomic scale.
i say this with the confidence of a person who knows you cannot know it, but can speculate after gathering experimental evidence about what might be happening to support the findings.
this stuff is not layman stuff, but a layman deserves to see at least the poetry of energy and matter being linked. that energy can be released from matter (atomic energy) and that energy can do work while matter can have physical properties.
mind is an energy phenomenon within the brain. also not simply a frequency of vibrations, but localized and structured and persisting.
and memory is the most persistent part of mind.
energy through the body is often the source of mental imagery.
but just as interference is key to memory formation and recall in the brain, interference can extend accross surfaces of the body as well - not as part of the memory process but as part of resonating or extending the subtlety of experience.
--------------------
 _  🧠_ 
|
Idiot
I Am Moron!
Registered: 11/27/05
Posts: 6,554
Loc: 41.90231, 12.45390 
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deCypher]
#8904110 - 09/09/08 08:16 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I know I'm being a little slow with responses but whatever.
The thing is, is that one can prove that matter exists. Just because your able to theorize that mater is just imagined by your 'self' doesn't take away the fact that we have many non-biological instruments that can and do detect mater. But then again if I am the one and only 'self' I guess I might just be dreaming this hole conversation with you as well as mater and all these experiences that are produced my 'self'. How does that make sense though? My 'self' is self sustained by my 'self' through imagination? Interesting, and all this time I thought that the universe was in a state of constantly balancing it self when in "fact" I am the only thing that exists.
As far as this mater vs energy conversation I don't know. I agree that they're different forms of the same thing. Like evaporated mater, I guess, but I really don't know much about this hole E=mc2 stuff.
--------------------
Customize your Shroomery experience!
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Edited by Idiot (09/09/08 08:22 PM)
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: the real you? [Re: Idiot]
#8904244 - 09/09/08 08:42 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The thing is, is that one can prove that matter exists.
Proof is one thing, and it is true as it is. But when we take this proof into the mind and add it to our collection of beliefs about how reality operates, it gets a obscured. Learning proofs through a deluded mentality will lead to a superficial and illusionary understanding of what is being learned.
It's a shame we aren't taught how to become aware of this delusion in school. Nay balance.
|
Idiot
I Am Moron!
Registered: 11/27/05
Posts: 6,554
Loc: 41.90231, 12.45390
Last seen: 2 months, 23 days
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deranger]
#8904295 - 09/09/08 08:54 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying we are far separated from scientific discovery and with our limited knowledge at a young age we only receive a broad understanding of what these discoveries truly are? Which could warp our understanding.
If so, then that discounts our (if not only my) ever changing and exacting beliefs. Personally, I am willing to let go of an old beliefs in order to refine my belief into a more precise understanding.
--------------------
Customize your Shroomery experience!
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: the real you? [Re: Idiot]
#8904326 - 09/09/08 09:01 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Idiot said:
I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying we are far separated from scientific discovery
Not really... if we were to combine and teach in school self-awareness AND science, we wouldn't stray so far from ourselves into delusion.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deranger]
#8906794 - 09/10/08 12:31 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SyntheticMInd said:
Can you show me where I made that claim?
(Sure it was brought up, but it was never claimed as fact)
You didn't claim it as fact, but you produced it as potential evidence that the "self" does not exist within the physical brain. Since you posted the information, it is up to you to either provide support OR acknowledge that there is no support. It is not up to me to provide support which contradicts your claim, as I am not the claimant.
What suggests to you that the biophoton field, which consists of very low levels of light emitted by living cells, is a more likely location for long-term memory storage than the brain?
Edited by Veritas (09/10/08 12:37 PM)
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deCypher]
#8906801 - 09/10/08 12:34 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The Cypher said:
Yep. But again, why are you biased in favor of calling it energy? Why not matter? They're simply different forms of the same thing--matter is presumably just a different frequency of vibration than energy.
Yes, but scientific exploration indicates that energy is more likely the "default" substance, as opposed to a variation of matter. I am not biased in favor of calling it energy, I am simply utilizing the scientific viewpoint.
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: the real you? [Re: Veritas]
#8907048 - 09/10/08 01:20 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There is no sufficient evidence to prove there is a connection between long-term memory and the biophoton field. However there is SOME partial evidence, so it's nice to be able to consider the possibilities. That is all this is, a possibility. And that is what it was intended to be posted as.
It was not originally posted to provide evidence for anything, you are the one who asked me where this information came from. My intent was not to use the video as evidence, rather to answer your question and providing you with information. This is being blown way out of proportion, and it seems you used this as an escape to avoid our previous topic of debate.
|
deCypher
Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
matter is not exactly a different frequency of vibration, it is a persistently formed and localized energy - at a sub-atomic scale.
i say this with the confidence of a person who knows you cannot know it, but can speculate after gathering experimental evidence about what might be happening to support the findings.
this stuff is not layman stuff, but a layman deserves to see at least the poetry of energy and matter being linked. that energy can be released from matter (atomic energy) and that energy can do work while matter can have physical properties.
mind is an energy phenomenon within the brain. also not simply a frequency of vibrations, but localized and structured and persisting.
and memory is the most persistent part of mind.
energy through the body is often the source of mental imagery.
but just as interference is key to memory formation and recall in the brain, interference can extend accross surfaces of the body as well - not as part of the memory process but as part of resonating or extending the subtlety of experience.
Would you mind laying down your process of reasoning for saying that energy is somehow more fundamental than matter? I'd be really curious to see the argument--I know very little in the way of quantum mechanics, string theory, and the like.
--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
  
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deranger]
#8907578 - 09/10/08 03:06 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Our previous topic of debate? Do you mean:
Quote:
Can reality be what we think it is? Is reality what it appears to be?
Reality could be what we think it is, or it could be something else entirely. It could be what it appears to be, or it could be something else entirely. How can this be debated?
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: the real you? [Re: Veritas]
#8907879 - 09/10/08 04:00 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The point is, because we don't know if various aspects of reality are what we think they are, why assume "all we are is physical"? My original response relating to this debate was to Idiot's belief that we are nothing but physical. Yes we are physical, but we may be much more than what we conceive to be the physical. There may be much more to physical reality than we are aware of, it may encompass much more than we have learned about it.
When people say things like, "all I am is this", it gives the impression that they know who and what they are. The truth is we don't have a clue, and these are nothing but assumptions.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deranger]
#8907931 - 09/10/08 04:15 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There may be more than what we are capable of perceiving. However, if we can adequately explain extant phenomenon in physical terms, it is not parsimonious to engage in speculative additional explanations. This does not mean that we conclude that the most-parsimonious explanation is correct, but rather that we keep it as our "best guess" until and unless it is shown to be insufficient.
What, in particular, suggests to you that a physical explanation is insufficient?
Quote:
There is no sufficient evidence to prove there is a connection between long-term memory and the biophoton field. However there is SOME partial evidence, so it's nice to be able to consider the possibilities.
There is no scientific evidence, but there is some anecdotal musing. This hypothesis is not really worth considering, IMO. It has no basis in science & is no more "possible" than our long-term memory being saved for us by tiny silver fairies. 
Edited by Veritas (09/10/08 04:23 PM)
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: the real you? [Re: Veritas]
#8908005 - 09/10/08 04:34 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
What, in particular, suggests to you that a physical explanation is insufficient?
Not insufficient, incomplete.
This does not mean that we conclude that the most-parsimonious explanation is correct, but rather that we keep it as our "best guess" until and unless it is shown to be insufficient.
I see no reason to hold onto a best guess. This may be where we differ.
|
Veritas
Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deranger]
#8908086 - 09/10/08 04:51 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Fine, "incomplete," then. If we really don't know whether there is more to reality than the physical, what suggests to you that there IS more?
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: the real you? [Re: Veritas]
#8908109 - 09/10/08 04:58 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It's not so much that there may be more than the physical, rather much more than what we conceive to be the physical.
|
ExplosiveMango
HallucinogenusDigitallus
Registered: 07/12/05
Posts: 3,222
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: the real you? [Re: deranger]
#8908443 - 09/10/08 06:18 PM (15 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It's interesting how I see toggling back and forth between;
-dichotomy or matter versus energy
-justification of certainty
To me, the matter versus energy argument and the certainty versus possibility argument look very similar. I think there are some interesting implications about the certainty and availability of information from each of the two sources.
For instance matter, due to its inertia is a relatively stable phenomena- things made of matter generally move quite slowly, and are often quite detectable and predictable.
Things made of energy are more frequently fairly quick; waves of sound, rays of light- they are generally less certain, less predictable.
Although if there is anything relativity has taught me, it is that certainty is a luxury we take out of social convenience, not observational truth.
So what does this say about how certain the "real you" is? How material or energy?
Is it as real as you can prove within a confined scientific environment?
Or is it as real as you can gracefully imagine during artistic meander?
One thing is for sure;
the consensus reached most certainly will be the one that most seems to be.
Many things are possible;
the door left open out into the light may fractally expand into endless speculation.
--------------------
Know your self.
Know your substance.
Know your source.
The most distorted perspective possible is the perspective that yours is not distorted.
|
deranger
Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
|
material existence is outside observation. is just itself.
is not objective, not subjective....... and wordless.
look or measure, and it changes
seems only to become what you think it is.
is apparent in quanta
but not the sum of these.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
Sclorch
1 2 all )
urite4594
lucid
Gthirteens
Glacius