The Truth (As I see it)

Let's not forget that, here, the truth is defined as (As I See It) where I = Gross.

Also, let the record show that we're all telepathically linked, as WS said while acting as my avatar.

Also, ......................................... .

 

Hey, you're right: I just thought of the fact that Gross was the first to use the word 'I'; so he gets to define that, too!

 

Front or back?
:thinkof:

 

Isn't reality shaped by thoughts and perception or something? You know, quantum physics and all that dillydally.

 

I don't know that much about it, but what (I think) I do know is that the 'perception affecting reality' idea isn't something focused on human consciousness (despite whatever romantic ideals ytzk and Gross may propound). If you sent an electron or a photon or whatever through a cloud of gas, the displacement of the gas due to the passing particle affects 'reality' in the same way people think reality is affected by looking at it. The idea is really about having anything in the system which 'records' or 'remembers' the path of the particle, and that state affects its reality; so if you could reverse the law (play it backwards), the particle would follow its original path and end up back in its original starting place if it's undisturbed in its 'forward time' flight, and it might go swerving off into some place where it wasn't if it is disturbed, due to that whole quantum uncertainty business, which is bad news for Classical determinism. I'm sure ytzk and all his mad notions think that its something to do primarily with consciousness, but I never understood why this was necessarily so, since you have to do other things to a particle to observe it, for example, shine light on it, and that bombards it with photons which is just throwing other little particles at it and knocking it around a bit (disturbing it).

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, because, as I mentioned, I don't know too much about it.

 

:monkey2:

 

I'm not even sure what that monkey is doing...

 

What a compelling argument. I'm instantly reminded of Ape Escape, the original "games are art" trendsetter.

 

Presumably the monkey is wondering whether or not it is about to be deleted.

 

Or, more like, it's hoping that it's continued perception of the thread above will alter reality enough so that it serves some useful fucking purpose.

 

Now, that would be unpossible!

The monkey is rolling its eyes in exasperation, WS, because (1) we've been through ALL this before and gotten no-where, (2) the quantum mechanics is grossly over-simplified and, (3) my views were similarly misrepresented, (but it's nice to be considered).

Are you sure you're not just a little bit autistic too, WS? It would explain your idiosyncratic speech, you're terrible literal-mindedness and your gift for ruffling peoples' feathers, not to mention your inability to read the facial expressions of cartoon monkeys.

If so, welcome to the club! Autism powers activate! If not, what's wrong with you?

 

Yes and no. Where your interpretation of my use of the word equals your definition, my point is still valid. But for where your use of the word equals your definition, the point is "obsolete".

Depends on what you mean. Did you mean Attraction before Love before Sex OR Lust before Love before Sex OR Attraction before Love before Lust? I'm inclined to think that you didn't mean anything at all. I will say this though: she isn't ugly to mine eyes.

Collective Consciousness (in my opinion) is more like the collective effects of a large number of electrons in that the electrons have a collective influence on the electromagnetic fields around them. In like manner, peer pressure could be considered an effect of collective consciousness. But then I also think the term Collective Consciousness is like using the word Evolved outside of its scientific meaning: It is used more for connotation (emotional impact) than its validity of meaning (logical use).

Wiccan's "Golden Rule" is "Do what you want, but do no harm." (At least according to the sole Wiccan I met.) Therefore, sin would be anything that does harm. Basically, sin is that which is contrary to the sinner's moral/ethical code. And if you have "no" morales or ethics, sin could be defined as that which gets you in trouble with others or the law.

Metaphor, Symbolism, Figures of Speech, Poetry, and every other form of non-literal communication: Do you understand any of them?

And since when has giving someone sight been limited to workers of miracles? Optometry gives sight to the blind and it is a science.

My point ... Let's try this explanation:
One plus one does NOT equal two. For example, one lump of clay added to another lump of clay does not equal two lumps of clay, but instead equals one lump of clay with their combined Volumes. -- Inconsistancies in meaning render logic invalid and illogical statements, seemingly valid. There are many words used in philosophy, religion and art that have diverse meanings. And since they deal with abstractions more than concrete things, metaphors, symbols and fiqures of speech are frequently used.

To understand the world is to perceive the world. Sight is a metaphor for understanding and blindness is a metaphor for the failure to understand.

 

I'm not autistic, in case anyone is wondering. In fact I am the opposite of autistic - I am unusually empathetic and socially aware. I took an EQ test once, and the results looked like this:

-------------|------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------
. . Average man . . . . Average woman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Me

Unfortunately, this results in its own set of difficulties, which in some cases appear very similar to autism. Sometimes I wonder if I'm an autistic savant, and my savant ability is empathy.

Anway, to get back to the useful content of this thread:

Yes! I agree that when people talk about a collective consciousness, or a "hive mind", there is actually no such thing. e.g. ants are all acting individually - it just LOOKS like they are being controlled by a central agency. Referring to the perceived agency directly is just a convenient shorthand for the emergent collective behavior of the swarm.

 

I don't know and I really don't care!

Yes it does.

If your whole point is about metaphors, I'm sure you'll have to define it for us, first! Don't go breaking no rules none!!

 

There are no rules. "There is what a man can do and what a man can't do." And I can add one plus one and get one. I can also add one plus one and get three (Mommy plus Daddy equals Family). The difference between your "logic" and the rest of the world is that your rules of logic don't apply. Scary isn't it?

 

Oh, I think I see what you're saying now. For example, to prove that 1+1≠2, I could take two things, smash them together until they're jammed into each other and inseparable, and call that adding. Or (from your own example), I could take a man and a woman, put one's penis inside the other one, wait nine months, and, if a baby's born, call that adding. It's all so clear now.

 

Ever see a mob turn ugly? Or what about a football crowd, Smuel? (Yeah, we all know you're English!) There is some thing at work there, an ancient beast which comes to life when we gather together.

More to the point, ever talk to an ant in its own language? Well, me neither, but there's a lot of neurons there in an hive, and their communication modes include neurotransmitters going from antenae to antenae, and travelling through their massive warrens at the speed of smell (the same as the speed of sound).

No doubt they work as individuals, but then again there's no doubt they work as an whole. You draw the line at the skin/chitin of a single organism and say, "here's the limit of mind."

If you were five microns tall, instead of five feet, you would point at a nerve cell in a human and say, "it only looks like it's controlled by a central agency, in fact it's acting as an individual" which is true, from a certain point of view, but it's a rather narrow and ignorant point of view, isn't it?

 

Awh man, this is getting less convincing by the minute...

 

Damn, I really thought I'd have had you all completely convinced with that one.

 

Not this guy!