| Author
|
A question
|
Fometrius
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
2082
Posted : Aug 31, 2010 00:29:40
|
Whats your answer to this question:
How can something be or exist if someone is not experiencing it?
Since what the thing is that is being experienced is totally different depending on who and what is looking it seems a bit hard to say that the thing that is being experienced is what it "seems to be"when it is different from another angle.
|
|
|
jabba
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
662
Posted : Aug 31, 2010 12:43
|
the answer is simple, when you hear of something existing and it becomes your jargon then go for it to experience it and you shall find the answer 
 To focus sometimes you need to spin hard on your soul's axis..... just don't ask how and what it means ;) |
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Oct 9, 2010 14:43
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Oct 9, 2010 20:03
|
^
P.S. What is the sound of one butt-cheek farting? |
|
|
|
Fometrius
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
2082
Posted : Oct 11, 2010 01:54
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-09 14:43, daark wrote:
well that thing is not expereincing you but you exist don't you?
|
|
But to exist i have to experience that i exist.Without something or someone noticing there is nothing to be noticed.Without someone watching there is nothing.
Why is there a table or a chair somewhere,because someone notices their presence and calls them something.What a table and chair is , is a cluster of atoms and molecules
(and then those are made of something else,and the spiral continues )
and to us those clusters looks like something,but with another couple of eyes the cluster of molecules is something completely other.If you were a ant or a parrot you would not experience the chair or table as a chair or table but as something else.So what is ,is a subjective perception.And those who looks through the same "binoculars" or "lense" shares the same illusion.
However,this is a bit offtopic,so no furher going into that matter.But anyway,as you say "that thing is not expereincing you but you exist don't you?"
But i experience my self,without me i am not.So therefore someone have to notice,to be there,to be present and watching for anything to exist.
However i understand that you maybe mean,for an example,that a seal in Scotland can exist without me noticing it and it still exist,yes,but someone has to notice it`s existence,itself or someone watching it.
Therefore nothing can be without someone noticing that something is. |
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Oct 11, 2010 02:42
|
I liked the whole thing about a chair and us experiencing is vs. ants doing the same thing. Yes, we and ants will get a very different idea of what a chair is – but it does not change the nature of that chair itself. It exists, whether we (or ants) are aware of it or not. Or it doesn’t.  After all, if our perception of a chair is but an illusion – we may go a step farther and declare that it’s not even an illusion but a hallucination, and the chair is not even there at all. So, you see - an answer to your question of whether a chair exists or not does not even depend on whether we saw it or not. 
All these conundrums are easily solved with a simple mental invention. It’s called God. Even if nobody at all "experienced" something – God did. Even if we (or ants) are not sure whether we really are experiencing something that truly exists or we’re simply tripping out of our mind – God knows. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Fometrius
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
2082
Posted : Oct 11, 2010 07:08
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-11 02:42, Maine Coon wrote:
I liked the whole thing about a chair and us experiencing is vs. ants doing the same thing. Yes, we and ants will get a very different idea of what a chair is – but it does not change the nature of that chair itself. It exists, whether we (or ants) are aware of it or not. Or it doesn’t. After all, if our perception of a chair is but an illusion – we may go a step farther and declare that it’s not even an illusion but a hallucination, and the chair is not even there at all. So, you see - an answer to your question of whether a chair exists or not does not even depend on whether we saw it or not.
All these conundrums are easily solved with a simple mental invention. It’s called God. Even if nobody at all "experienced" something – God did. Even if we (or ants) are not sure whether we really are experiencing something that truly exists or we’re simply tripping out of our mind – God knows. Problem solved.
|
|
If we think of something,lets say a apple.Who/What decided that it is a apple ? The thing "experiencing" the apple,i can see a apple ,grab it and eat it.Therefore it exist,in my experience.
For another one,a worm , cell, sparrow , a bacteria, flie , etc it is not a apple.It is something else.Why should my view of the molecule cluster be more "correct" in terms of really being more real then theirs? Now,since our species has world domination over this planet and we all have the same "lense" to look through ( since we have the same operating system,dna,everything ) most agree on a "apple" being a apple. But as said,in reality it is only a subjective way of an experience with another part of life,molecules,atomes , (whatever sentence one feel like fitting.) It is all intercourses between different parts of life and every part experience their relationship to other parts different.Every part experience the other parts in other ways.
How can something be a specific thing and not just what the one experience and decides the thing to be.Even if itself experience itself to be a certain thing,it`s own view is still subjective since it is based on a certain lense,a certain way of experiencing things.
you said
"Yes, we and ants will get a very different idea of what a chair is – but it does not change the nature of that chair itself."
What is the nature of the chair itself,what is the core of the chair.We can paint up the picture of a spiral for our inner eye,in the first layers of the spiral we see a chair,then wee see wood,then we see molecules,then we see atoms,then we see quark`s,then it continues.Layer after layer after layer.It is the same with us,first it is our body,our name,our personality,then when you look through the spiral,there is the underlying layers,the experiences that has formed you,your dna,cell structure,etc,molecules,atoms,qvarks,and it continues .
When does the spiral stop,when it does stop can we call what it stops at for god,is the root god? God is a word that symbolizes the core of all of this.The source,from which all things manifest.What else could we call god,what else could be the highest and most aftersought,most yearned truth,form,concept etc then the deepest root of all.Which longing could be stronger then the longing for connection and understanding of ones most deep root and core.The seed from which all flowers grow.
So with those words in mind,the chair would be the root.
The only true reality then would be that the chair is the root,or an extension of the root.That the only true nature of the chair is being a part of the "root" which is a word for the deepest core of the spiral which show what a thing is.In other words,when your "trace" everything back from its beginning you get to the "true nature " of all things. That is the only true nature of something i can think of,everything else is just surface layers or modifications of it.
Perhaps one can say that a chair,apple,banana or whatever can exist in many ways or forms,it is all up to the other part of life that comes in contact with it to decide how to experience it.How can it in itself be something ? A apple is a apple because someone decided that it is a apple,in reality it is something we cannot truly explain and probably never will,especially not with words,since all a word can do is to point and how can the most complete truth be explained by something pointing towards something?
|
|
|
|
Fometrius
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
2082
Posted : Oct 11, 2010 07:09
|
Even if i myself experience myself to be a certain thing it is still my subjective experience.Who decides what the true nature of something is? Because every form of life experience other forms of life different.As i see it the only true nature of a thing would be it`s unchanging root since everything else is just changing.If it would be something else then that,who could decide that,who can tell that the true nature of this object is something.
What is the true nature of something,if not the core ,the root? Everything else is just layers.The same thing it is with us.We are just a flower of a deeper root.
As i view it ,the experience and the experiencer is like two sides of the same coin.They cant exist without each other.
If someone would say that the clouds would exist even if we did not see them i would say, we create the clouds,if you are a mosquito a cell or a fish it is not clouds.We experience something to be clouds and when looking into the human lense,one see that parts of molecules,atomes,etc as clouds.Change lense,and we are not talking about clouds any longer.
Then take a stone,a tree, and a carpet,who decides that it is a stone ,a tree and a carpet? if not the watcher.The watcher creates what is.We are the watcher,as all forms of life,we watch and interpret and therefore create an experience of something.It was green or blue,fast or slow,strong or weak,it looked like this,sounded like this etc.But it was non of that,what it really was is something else then what we thought it was,because what we thought it was was just our subjective imagination created by the conditions of the lense we were looking through.
How can a stone be a stone without someone noticing it to be a stone ? What is a stone and how does a stone look in it`s true nature?
That is the thing,we start to notice that the outside world is created by the inner world.They are connected.What we experience in the outer is purely dictated by the inner.The inner decides what the outer is.The inner create the outer,because without the inner there is no outer.
How can a cloud be a cloud by itself? We make it to be a cloud,our subjective lense creates that.There is no thing as a cloud without us experiencing a cloud.We are the cloud,we are the apple,we are the banana,we are the tree,because without us they would not exist.They exist because we have an idea of something as a banana ,apple,tree, etc.How could a banana exist if there was no one to notice a banana,what they are is a created concept from a subjective view.We deciced that the banana exist because we have a certain lense that views things in a certain way.What is a banana if not someone is watching it,how does it look,what is it and what is it`s true form? As soon as something is something someone decides that it is something and what it is.How can a banana be without someone noticing it ? And what is the banana then ,truly,when one shall describe it totally objectively,for what it truly is ?
We say the banana is yellow and taste like this and looks like a special way.Yellow is what our minds and eyes create,it is something we have created ,yellow does not exist outside ourselfes,we experience something as yellow outside ourselfes because how we work,how it taste is how we think it taste and what it is and how it looks is just dictated by our minds and ways of looking etc.
How can a banana be without the "human factor" ,because what a banana is ,is a concept created by this lense.Change lense and it is no banana any more.
Therefore,everything outside us is created by what is inside us.The watcher decides what is being watched.The experiencer creates the experience.He cannot explain why the experience happen and why it turns out to be what it turns out to be but whatever it is , his lense,his way of looking and experiencing creates and decides,defines what the experience is.So therefore in a way he and the experience is not two different things because even though he cannot control what happens ,what happens is created by him.What it was that happened is created by what he thought happened.Without him nothing of what he have experienced would have happened,they happened because he had an interpretation of different clusters of molecules,atoms,qvarks (the spiral goes on ) relationships towards other parts of molecules etc.He viewed their intercourses with each other in different ways.Different lense,different world.Therefore the world is created by the lense.What looks decides what is. Because what is ,is created by what looks.
For something to be something,someone or something has to decide or experience it to be something.Otherwise it is nothing.And ,yes,even if others dont notice me i still exist,because then i notice that i exist,and i as others are also a subjective watcher,as soon as something is aware of something,the awareness of what is ,is created by the lense and it`s conditions that is being looked through.
How can a stone be a stone without something deciding it to be a stone,it`s true nature when you go through the spiral is something else then a stone,a stone is a surface concept of a group of atoms that looks and feels in a certain way when you look through one kind of lense.Therefore it`s nature as a stone is created by us.That is the whole thing ,everything that is ,is created by the thing that notices it.
What is around us in space ? It is something we cannot truly grasp,because what it is there is what we think it is,it is how we experience it.We see stars because when looking through this lense they appear.Actually it is that simple.Dont look through this lense and they dont appear.
|
|
|
|
mk47
Inactive User
Started Topics :
118
Posts :
4444
Posted : Oct 11, 2010 12:54
|
|
miley cyrus pussy ... tight or loose ?
|
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Oct 11, 2010 17:07
|
Fometrius,
Writing a thousand sentences is not the same as writing ten sentences and repeating them 100 times. Once you accept that, it will save tons of time and effort for you and – even more importantly – for somebody who makes an effort to read your posts.
I am unemployed and right now battling with a very large cup of coffee – which is why I actually read your 100 slightly varied repeats of “a stone is not a stone until I say it’s a stone”. I don’t think anybody else here is that generous with his time.
Now, since we’re done with the form, let’s go back to the substance.
No, the perceiver does not create the world he perceives – he creates a subjective opinion of this world. Which may or may not be reasonably close to reality. Just because somebody is colorblind, it does not make absorption spectra of grass and poppy flowers peak at the same wavelength. And if somebody is totally blind, it does not negate the very existence of electromagnetic waves of 300-600 nm wavelength. And if I die altogether – you will still live. It doesn’t mean that my world will end and yours continue. It only means that our carbon footprint will become a tiny bit smaller. Subjective character of our perception does not have any relation with objective existence of whatever we perceive.
Next, let’s stop for a second at that “root” a.k.a “the deepest layer of the spiral”. You can stop trying to be polite and not to offend our atheist friends here. There is no need to do verbal acrobatics with words like “The Root of All”, “The Ultimate Why”, “The Force”, “That Thing That Connects Us All”, “The Enlightening Essence”. Let’s skip all these New-Agey attempts to not spook away agnostics or not to invoke the wrath of official churches – and just call It what we’ve called It for millennia: God. Simple and saves everybody tons of confusion.
|
|
|
|
Fometrius
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
2082
Posted : Oct 14, 2010 02:18
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-11 17:07, Maine Coon wrote:
Fometrius,
Writing a thousand sentences is not the same as writing ten sentences and repeating them 100 times. Once you accept that, it will save tons of time and effort for you and – even more importantly – for somebody who makes an effort to read your posts.
I am unemployed and right now battling with a very large cup of coffee – which is why I actually read your 100 slightly varied repeats of “a stone is not a stone until I say it’s a stone”. I don’t think anybody else here is that generous with his time.
Now, since we’re done with the form, let’s go back to the substance.
No, the perceiver does not create the world he perceives – he creates a subjective opinion of this world. Which may or may not be reasonably close to reality. Just because somebody is colorblind, it does not make absorption spectra of grass and poppy flowers peak at the same wavelength. And if somebody is totally blind, it does not negate the very existence of electromagnetic waves of 300-600 nm wavelength. And if I die altogether – you will still live. It doesn’t mean that my world will end and yours continue. It only means that our carbon footprint will become a tiny bit smaller. Subjective character of our perception does not have any relation with objective existence of whatever we perceive.
Next, let’s stop for a second at that “root” a.k.a “the deepest layer of the spiral”. You can stop trying to be polite and not to offend our atheist friends here. There is no need to do verbal acrobatics with words like “The Root of All”, “The Ultimate Why”, “The Force”, “That Thing That Connects Us All”, “The Enlightening Essence”. Let’s skip all these New-Agey attempts to not spook away agnostics or not to invoke the wrath of official churches – and just call It what we’ve called It for millennia: God. Simple and saves everybody tons of confusion.
|
|
Hi there Maine Coon ,time for some 
"Writing a thousand sentences is not the same as writing ten sentences and repeating them 100 times."
"There is no need to do verbal acrobatics with words like “The Root of All”, “The Ultimate Why”, “The Force”, “That Thing That Connects Us All”, “The Enlightening Essence”. Let’s skip all these New-Agey attempts to not spook away agnostics or not to invoke the wrath of official churches – and just call It what we’ve called It for millennia: God. Simple and saves everybody tons of confusion. "
If you translate a word to as many languages as possible more people will understand it.It can be good to explain a thing in many ways,to get sure everyone gets it.The word god brings different associations for different people and therefore the word "god" means different things for them.The name "god" is a very loaded word and means alot of different things and emotions for different people. If one feel like using it ,sure,nice,if one does not want to use that word,that is fine to.That is up to the person in question.
"I am unemployed and right now battling with a very large cup of coffee – which is why I actually read your 100 slightly varied repeats of “a stone is not a stone until I say it’s a stone”. I don’t think anybody else here is that generous with his time."
Reading is good mental gymnastics
"No, the perceiver does not create the world he perceives – he creates a subjective opinion of this world. Which may or may not be reasonably close to reality. Just because somebody is colorblind, it does not make absorption spectra of grass and poppy flowers peak at the same wavelength.."
I have noticed that you think this,yes,well,i dont agree.I respect your opinion ,just as you respect mine,and it is nice with discussions as long as mutual respect is being shown towards the other part.It is good to "attack" the viewpoints oneself got from other angles , it gives oneself more perspective.
"Just because somebody is colorblind, it does not make absorption spectra of grass and poppy flowers peak at the same wavelength. And if somebody is totally blind, it does not negate the very existence of electromagnetic waves of 300-600 nm wavelength"
Electromagnetic waves of 300-600nm wavelenghts is what is being seen when you are a human.Or when you watch through a lense that is close to this.
As i said in my other post
What is around us in space ? It is something we cannot truly grasp,because what it is there is what we think it is,it is how we experience it.We see stars because when looking through this lense they appear.Actually it is that simple.Dont look through this lense and they dont appear.
Be a human and there is electromagnetic waves etc, watch a different lense and it dont exist.What we see in the universe i believe is what we think that we see.What we see are created by the conditions of what is looking.Change the conditions of what is looking and other things are being seen.How can then something truly be what it appears to be when all we know about and ever will know about is created by underlying conditions and how the lense looks that we look through.
"Now, since we’re done with the form, let’s go back to the substance. "
The closest i can see anything get to what it really is should be when it get`s as close as possible to it`s root.To it`s most untouched,unmodified "state","being".Therefore i was talking about "the spiral",which for me was a way of letting the reader think of how everything consists of many layers and when you go into the deeper layers ,what it is does change,it is just surfaces of something else.The more layers that is upon it,the more modified it gets.So,the only real,and true ,objective nature of something should ,in my opinion, be it`s most deep root and it`s most unmodified core.So , when speaking about the core of something the "god question" comes into the picture.
When we boil down all of this to a single soup ,what we find is speculations.That is what it is.Lets be honest to each other.This is not facts,this is individual speculations (even if they are shared by many) ,and so are everything else that is being said and that ever will be said about what we speak about.
"You can stop trying to be polite and not to offend our atheist friends here."
I am a polite person,i believe in showing respect and receiving respect.
Have a nice day
|
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Oct 14, 2010 03:32
|
Fometrius,
We’re actually talking about the same things. The only difference is that I stayed on the original topic and you deviated from it. The original question was not whether a thing is what we perceive it to be, but whether a thing exists at all if we do not perceive it.
The first question can be answered in a number of sneaky ways like “close enough for practical purposes” or “yes, if a million people perceive it the same way” – there is some rhetorical wiggle room there. The second question has only three possible answers: yes, no and maybe – there is no wiggle room there. I would claim that it’s a “yes” if the thing actually exists and a “no” if the thing does not exist. The answer is simple and does not require 3 feet of text.
There is no “maybe” if you think about it this way. Whether somebody perceives it or not is completely irrelevant , as is whether his/her perception is anywhere close to the thing’s true nature. The only being who knows for sure whether a thing exists or not and what exactly is its nature is God, if you believe in It (however you decide to call It). And if you are an atheist – then for you that person is nobody – nobody knows, end of story. Which is, by the way, why I don’t believe in probabilities of 0 and 1: there is simply no way at all to know for sure if something can or cannot happen.
Now, like you said, all this is a matter of personal belief, so I am not trying to convince anybody here – just sharing my views on the topic. I don’t benefit (or suffer) in any way if somebody shares my views (or not).
On the other hand, whether absorption spectra of poppy flowers and green leaves peak at the same wavelength for a blind person vs. a “normal” person is not a matter of personal belief – for the same reason I described in the previous paragraph: those spectra exist regardless of one’s ability to distinguish colors. They can be measured with colorblind (and mindless) instruments and they can be shown to peak at different wavelengths. One peaks at what most people call “cyan” (which is why it looks red to them) and the other one peaks at what most people call “red” and “blue” (which is why it looks green). Those instruments will produce the same result when placed next to a “normal” person or a color-blind or even completely blind one. If you never knew anything at all about colors, you could still describe poppies and leaves in terms of nanometers. Once again, this is OT, since this is not what your original question was about.
Of course, the whole field of optics may be bogus, just our shared delusion. And those poppies and leaves may not be there at all, not to mention the electromagnetic waves they absorb. So, we come back to “nobody knows” or “God knows” – pick your favorite and let’s go on with our lives.
|
|
|
|
Xolvexs
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
241
Posts :
2848
Posted : Oct 14, 2010 07:19
|
|
experience is a human way of interpretation of being ..u can be dead like the trunk of a wood and still exist and have an experience...and mushroom can grow on you..so exist either ways the dead bark is experiencing..you chop the tree and make it into a chair or table the wood is still..it may not be experiencing but still is existing..its in front of you..
When death comes to your doorstep, make sure you are alive |
|
|
|
Fometrius
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
84
Posts :
2082
Posted : Mar 16, 2011 01:40
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-10-11 12:54, mk47 wrote:
miley cyrus pussy ... tight or loose ?
|
|
My guess is tight.
|
|
|
|
|
