TINNY Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 matter is just a perception. this topic will try to discuss the philosophical implications (actually it's hard science) of this finding. Read this e-book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 The e-book does a very fine job of describing how the brain interprets information received via our sense organs. I can't understand how they extrapolate that to involve god. That portion is totally convoluted. I think that maybe someone has taken the film "The Matrix" as factual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 nice website, i read a couple pages of it. hm... this world is an illusion, and thinking about matter is illusion is also an illusion (a process in our brain)... whatever you do (thinking) is an illusion, so nothing is truely valid..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Our senses give us a perception of [an] external reality that we can act upon and create effects from causes on a continum through something we call time. To validate this all you have to do is look at history; it should also be noted that what has actually happened has a high degree of consensus, depending on the event, of course. Personally, I see nothing illusionary about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 OK, I have not, nor will I have for a while, a chance to read this referenced site. Plus it is against this site's policy to just throw a URL out with no details, examples, ... And we all know how much I stick to the rules.... er ... Hey, lay off! :-) Anyway, just a few comments based strickly on the limited posts so far. Tinny, the topic title and summary contradict each other. "Hard science" can NOT be based on "Illusions". Unc, so they are throwing the god thing out there? Funny how the suggestion is that everything is an illusion, perhaps except some god entity? Sounds like, as you say, a convolution on par with claiming a required first cause that needs no first cause. Tim, I like your capsule. Very clever. geko, I like how you start out, and end. But I have trouble with it should also be noted that what has actually happened has a high degree of consensus, depending on the event, of course. The qualifier at the end means that it means nothing. Any case in which it can be shown to not apply, it's just one of those events. Thus if it applies in NONE, it is still a correct statement, even though the basic premise could be completely false. Further, we woould find in history that the "consensus" of those at the time is often very wrong. The bible alon proves this. But then that is just one of the many cases in which it does not apply? As Tim points out though, if it is all illusion, so is the illusion itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblivion Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Author of this thread = desperate for answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Originally posted by: Freethinker it should also be noted that what has actually happened has a high degree of consensus, depending on the event, of course. The qualifier at the end means that it means nothing. Any case in which it can be shown to not apply, it's just one of those events. Thus if it applies in NONE, it is still a correct statement, even though the basic premise could be completely false. Further, we woould find in history that the "consensus" of those at the time is often very wrong. The bible alon proves this. But then that is just one of the many cases in which it does not apply? I'm not sure i understand but, when i said that ".....be noted that what has actually happened has a high degree of consensus...", i was qualifying the presumed objective nature of the past by saying that sources of history dont contradict. Depending on the source and event in this case as it were (which you say later i think). Basically, the consensus i was referring to is that, if people, in [our] present (historians etc.,), have sourced information from peoples perceptions (relayed through differing mediums), of what happened in their (the people in the past), time, that doesnt contradict each other, it's objective. Thus, i feel, that it can be said to have happened. Non-illusionary......... with tongue in cheek, just to by-pass tims' metaphysics When i said "depending on the event" i was referring to instances such as the bible etc., yes. Other examples could be the moonlanding and the holocaust denial. If i havent answered/explained the following... The qualifier at the end means that it means nothing. Any case in which it can be shown to not apply, it's just one of those events. Thus if it applies in NONE, it is still a correct statement, even though the basic premise could be completely false. ..i'd like you to say. Edit: had to change an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Originally posted by: Tim_Lounice website, i read a couple pages of it. hm... this world is an illusion, and thinking about matter is illusion is also an illusion (a process in our brain)... whatever you do (thinking) is an illusion, so nothing is truely valid..... Tim, Be careful before you make comments about that website - it is based on the writings of Mr. Adnan Oktar who uses a Christian variety of Islam (ie, a Moslem accepting Jesus as a prophet) to counter just about anything he does not like in science - like evolution, physics, medicine (just to mention some). http://www.harunyahya.com/theauthor.php I would strongly advice against accepting anything written at that website as factual science. It is pure religious-ish, sect-like writing, presented in a professional manner which probably is great for selling ideas and possibly books, videos and other merchandise. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted July 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Basically, the consensus i was referring to is that, if people, in [our] present (historians etc.,), have sourced information from peoples perceptions (relayed through differing mediums), of what happened in their (the people in the past), time, that doesnt contradict each other, it's objective. Thus, i feel, that it can be said to have happened. Non-illusionary......... with tongue in cheek, just to by-pass tims' metaphysics You missed the point. Tormod, you're not arguing. i thought it was something called ad hominem. DOes everyone agree that everything wae see touch, hear, taste, smell merely exists in our brain? the onlt thing that exists in our brain is organic matter and electrical impulses. our brain is what makes these signals meaningful for us, and interprets these signals as senses of smell, taste, vision, sound or touch. It is a stunning fact that the brain, which is made of wet meat, can know which electrical signal should be interpreted as smell and which one as vision, and can convert the same material into different senses and feelings"If our lives are visions created in our brains, then who is it that creates these visions? And who is it that sees these visions in our brains without having eyes and enjoys them, gets excited and happy?"The one who sees the picture is not the proteins, molecules or atoms in the brain, but the soul which God breathed from His Spirit to man.ALTHOUGH PEOPLE PRESUME THE EXISTENCE OF A MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF OUR BRAINS, LIGHT, SOUND AND COLORS DO NOT EXIST; ONLY ENERGY EXISTSJust as everything we see in our environment is an image formed in our brain, so is our own body an image in the brainthe illlusion can be proven by using artificial stimuli to create an imaginary waorld, or dreams. When a person has a dream of being in a garden on a bitingly cold morning in the winter, he can feel the cold and start shaking. However, there is neither wind nor cold in his particular location. He might be even sleeping in a very warm room. Nevertheless, he feels the cold in all its reality. There is no difference between the cold he feels in the real world and the cold he is feeling in his dream. A person sleeping in a comfortable bed in his home may dream that he is in the middle of a war. And he might also feel the fear, tension and the panic of the war as if it were taking place in the real world. Yet at that time he is sleeping in a comfortable bed by himself. The realistic noises and visions he sees in his dream occur in his mind.At this level there is another question that should be asked: Our soul watches the sights in our brains. But who is it that creates these sights? Could the brain itself form a bright, colorful, clear, shadowy sight and form a whole world through electrical signals in a tiny space? The brain is no more than a wet, soft, curvy piece of meat. Could a simple piece of meat like this create a sight clearer than any that could be provided by a television set with the latest technology, without any snow or horizontal jitter? Could a vision of such high quality be formed inside a piece of meat? Could this wet piece of meat form a stereo sound of higher quality than a stereo hi-fi system with the highest technology, without any sizzling noises? Of course, it is impossible for a brain, which is made of one and a half kilograms (four pounds) of meat to form such perfect perceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Martin Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 If all matter is an illusion, then the brain does not exist either. Which is it? Wet meat or an illusion, you can't have it both ways Tinny. You and your brain may be an illusion, I and mine are VERY REAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Originally posted by: TINNYDOes everyone agree that everything wae see touch, hear, taste, smell merely exists in our brain?No I do not agree. The ONLY thing that EXISTS in our brain is the gray matter (blood, serotonin, ...) it is made of. The best we can claim is that some representation of input recieved from our senses does in fact directly correlate to our physical surroundings. It is a stunning fact that the brain, which is made of wet meat, can know which electrical signal...The brain does not "know" anything about itself on that physical of a level. The connections are genetically hardwired during birth and adapt as input is received. We do not "DECIDE" which physical organ is connected to which parts of a brain. The one who sees the picture is not the proteins, molecules or atoms in the brain, but the soul which God breathed from His Spirit to man.AH, I see, you don't care that this was wrong, you were going hocus pocus on us! There is no difference between the cold he feels in the real world and the cold he is feeling in his dream...A person sleeping in a comfortable bed in his home may dream that he is in the middle of a war. And he might also feel the fear, tension and the panic of the war as if it were taking place in the real world. Yet at that time he is sleeping in a comfortable bed by himself. The realistic noises and visions he sees in his dream occur in his mind.So which is it? In the first one you make the claim that the dreamer actually experiences the dream in his real physical world. Then you change things and claim that it is only real in his head. You ought to try and stay consistant at least in one set of examples. At this level there is another question that should be asked:Ya and that question is, "If the basic premises are false and the examples given contrqadict each other, why should be bother going any further? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Originally posted by: Uncle MartinI and mine are VERY REAL. Well Unc, I guess I could agree. At least for the sake of this discussion! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted July 5, 2004 Report Share Posted July 5, 2004 Originally posted by: TINNYTormod, you're not arguing. i thought it was something called ad hominem. Huh? "If our lives are visions created in our brains, then who is it that creates these visions? And who is it that sees these visions in our brains without having eyes and enjoys them, gets excited and happy?" The one who sees the picture is not the proteins, molecules or atoms in the brain, but the soul which God breathed from His Spirit to man. This is a leap of faith and not a scientific deduction. ALTHOUGH PEOPLE PRESUME THE EXISTENCE OF A MATERIAL WORLD OUTSIDE OF OUR BRAINS, LIGHT, SOUND AND COLORS DO NOT EXIST; ONLY ENERGY EXISTS Plato said as much two thousand years ago, that does not mean it is true. And like others point out here, your argument means that everything this world contains is about 6 billion brains, and a lot of energy. Nevertheless, he feels the cold in all its reality. There is no difference between the cold he feels in the real world and the cold he is feeling in his dream. The cold he feels is not real, even though it *feels* real to the dreamer. It is simple to prove. If you wake him up, he is warm. If he were really cold, he would be cold when he woke up and need to drink something warm or put on more clothes. You can dream of being naked in the Arctic but you would not wake up with frostbites. A person sleeping in a comfortable bed in his home may dream that he is in the middle of a war. And he might also feel the fear, tension and the panic of the war as if it were taking place in the real world. Yet at that time he is sleeping in a comfortable bed by himself. The realistic noises and visions he sees in his dream occur in his mind. Again, this is not real. He could get killed in the dream but he will not die. Could a vision of such high quality be formed inside a piece of meat? Could this wet piece of meat form a stereo sound of higher quality than a stereo hi-fi system with the highest technology, without any sizzling noises? Of course, it is impossible for a brain, which is made of one and a half kilograms (four pounds) of meat to form such perfect perceptions. This is an extraordinary statement and requires some kind of proof. Rhetoric is not enough here. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted July 6, 2004 Report Share Posted July 6, 2004 Originally posted by: TINNY You missed the point. ......something called ad hominem. What point was that? And how exactly have i discredited the claimant for the purpose of discrediting the claim? I think i have missed the point this time around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts