hum...
How old are you?
And...
Without offense... you don't seem much philosophical... are you trying to be...?
How old are you?
And...
Without offense... you don't seem much philosophical... are you trying to be...?
The Truth Is a Paradox!!
- Thread starter TruthSeeker
- Start date
It's not that you don't seem to be wise... it is that you don't seem to be so used to discuss this kind of thing...
that's an interesting observation. i don't know how I would or wouldn't give that impression. i'm just trying to gain some insight on the conclusions i've reached. trying to get things out to be scrutinzed by others who've been thinking about similar things. if it doesn't seem like i'm used to talking about this, i guess you're right. i used to be able to more when i was younger and had more friends and conversations led to these kind of things. as i get older, (friends inevitably move away or get marrried and have kids (like me now)) and more exposure to stuff, i've noticed that most people simply don't care about it. so yeah, good observation. i used to but not so much anymore. i still think about it all the time. i can't help it, but there isn't anyone to discuss it with. hence after a few years of wondering what to do, i'm here. that's why I've posted about 5 gazillion times in two weeks. 
conceptual log jam.
conceptual log jam.
wesmorris,
Well... good that now you have people to discuss those things...
notme2000,
Since the universe is apparently infinite, I presume that anyone will ever know everything... :bugeye:
...until go to heaven and God reveal everything...
Well... good that now you have people to discuss those things...
notme2000,
Since the universe is apparently infinite, I presume that anyone will ever know everything... :bugeye:
...until go to heaven and God reveal everything...
I havent read any of other peoples thoughts... sorry
Or maybe negative existence... I have been pondering over this lately. It seems to me that existence would be the positive, so there must be a negative as well. If negative is beyond non-existence (because nonexistence is neutral) would this be a suspension of consciousness? A single thought trapped in oblivion? Would it be possible for you to be conscious, and know that you were conscious, but you couldn't think, move, or exist?
I cant figure this out because i have no prerequisites in physics or science, but if you think that you could help me out here with this one it would help. Thanks
Or maybe negative existence... I have been pondering over this lately. It seems to me that existence would be the positive, so there must be a negative as well. If negative is beyond non-existence (because nonexistence is neutral) would this be a suspension of consciousness? A single thought trapped in oblivion? Would it be possible for you to be conscious, and know that you were conscious, but you couldn't think, move, or exist?
I cant figure this out because i have no prerequisites in physics or science, but if you think that you could help me out here with this one it would help. Thanks
Does the abstract exist?
There you have it. What do you think? Okay, I'll define exist: I mean, if you or I weren't here to dream it up, would it still be?
Is it a discovery or a creation? Is is a creation that approximates a truth that will later be revealed? Could have built a microwave a gazillion years ago if you'd had the knowledge. Is knowledge discovered or created? Again, is it an approximation of things to later be revealed?
I think it's the latter in both the case of 'abstract' and 'knowledge', with the limitation that the approximation can only get better, never reaching unity (if it did consciousness would have to be redefined). Therefore, the truth cannot be known (via intellect (meaning not through emotion)) and when it is, the game starts over - no further need for definitions right?
There you have it. What do you think? Okay, I'll define exist: I mean, if you or I weren't here to dream it up, would it still be?
Is it a discovery or a creation? Is is a creation that approximates a truth that will later be revealed? Could have built a microwave a gazillion years ago if you'd had the knowledge. Is knowledge discovered or created? Again, is it an approximation of things to later be revealed?
I think it's the latter in both the case of 'abstract' and 'knowledge', with the limitation that the approximation can only get better, never reaching unity (if it did consciousness would have to be redefined). Therefore, the truth cannot be known (via intellect (meaning not through emotion)) and when it is, the game starts over - no further need for definitions right?
Well I always thought of non-existance as the negative itself, and probability as the neutral. ie. something exists because it is probable for it to exist, and something does not exist because it is improbable for it to exist. The scales are persumably endless on the negative side (even if something is HIGHLY improbable it still has the potential to exist) while on the positive side the only number is 1, it exists and it's number is 1 because it cannot exist any more or less than it does right?
But certain scientific theorys and experiments are beginning to point towards the fact that existance and non-existance are invariably linked, not by probability, but by our thought(or emotion?).
I will try and find a link.
This is a bit off topic (or very on-topic?)
But just to show what I mean:
I just read an article about how certain simple computers have been placed arround the world that create a random 1 or 0 every millisecond and then records this.
On the day of 9-11 these computers showed HUGE variations from the normal pattern as more and more people learned about the attacks. They have also recorded these variations during very exciting football matches, the same variations have been shown over and over again when a large ammount of people share emotions.
This has the implication that WE have to ability to effect electronics with just the power of thought, or perhaps it's not the electronics we are affecting, but the probability itself??
This could have huge effects on our very idea of reality.
Immagine everyone in the world started thinking about the same thing, could it happen? What if the only reason the world exists is because we are all thinking about it?
Well, Truth is actual fact, nothing more or less, there can't be an over truth, or undertruth, the latter being less, without it becoming a lie, an overtruth would be an overstatement of simple truth! the opposite of Fact is Fiction, or a lie. for every action there is an opposite reaction unless one mentions stupid. is there a more stupid or less stupid? I think Stupid is universal like truth. which added together in descriptive words can go like this: Truely Stupid.. true meaning truth and stupid meaning.. well .. Stupid.
Now, Non existance is sorta like Non Existant , meaning Not there or Here, or Anywhere for that matter, which makes it also the truth. unless of course you were to couple that with something which was previously unknown to exist and later found that it in fact does exist, which then would make it existing, which which make it existant, causing it to have existance.. which sounds past tense but isn't, because it still does in fact exist which would make it truely existant... again.. now thats loopy, or looping, which is in fact a true existing description of a circle, which is always constant and must be true to obtain existance of itself in order to become the truth.........NExT..QueStioN... that was too easy!
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
Now, Non existance is sorta like Non Existant , meaning Not there or Here, or Anywhere for that matter, which makes it also the truth. unless of course you were to couple that with something which was previously unknown to exist and later found that it in fact does exist, which then would make it existing, which which make it existant, causing it to have existance.. which sounds past tense but isn't, because it still does in fact exist which would make it truely existant... again.. now thats loopy, or looping, which is in fact a true existing description of a circle, which is always constant and must be true to obtain existance of itself in order to become the truth.........NExT..QueStioN... that was too easy!
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)
Slacker47,
You don't need to know physics, you just need to be a good philosopher. The "non-existance" is alreaqdy negative, it is not neutral. One thing or exist or not, there is no middle term. There are abstract thoughts, but those fall in the "existance" category as your thoughts do exist (but not phisically). Only because it doesn't exist phisically, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.
wesmorris,
The moon exists wheter you look at it or not. Since the moment you look at it, you acknoledge its existance. Since this moment, you know that the moon exist, you have this knowledge.
That's a good conclusion.
moonman,
Another good conclusion, but not quite right. The Truth won't change with our thoughts. If everything would change with our thoughts, the universe would be pretty messy. I believe there is an essential Truth that keeps the order in the universe and a part of it is flexible enough to let us mold our reality. The hard part is to know where our own reality finishes and the Truth begins...
I hope atheists realize that all this stuff is linked to faith. It is easy to have faith in something that you can perceive. Since you can perceive the world around you, you have faith that it exist, thus making it existant. Faith, as the Bible define it, is the intrinsic power that creates, regulates and holds the universe together; the very nature of belief molding our reality.
slim,
Sorry... that was a little bit incomprehensible...
DumbBlond,
I will give you my terms...
Reality- what you call interpretation
Truth- essential Truth
It is easier to communicate this way...
You don't need to know physics, you just need to be a good philosopher. The "non-existance" is alreaqdy negative, it is not neutral. One thing or exist or not, there is no middle term. There are abstract thoughts, but those fall in the "existance" category as your thoughts do exist (but not phisically). Only because it doesn't exist phisically, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.
wesmorris,
The moon exists wheter you look at it or not. Since the moment you look at it, you acknoledge its existance. Since this moment, you know that the moon exist, you have this knowledge.
That's a good conclusion.
moonman,
Another good conclusion, but not quite right. The Truth won't change with our thoughts. If everything would change with our thoughts, the universe would be pretty messy. I believe there is an essential Truth that keeps the order in the universe and a part of it is flexible enough to let us mold our reality. The hard part is to know where our own reality finishes and the Truth begins...
I hope atheists realize that all this stuff is linked to faith. It is easy to have faith in something that you can perceive. Since you can perceive the world around you, you have faith that it exist, thus making it existant. Faith, as the Bible define it, is the intrinsic power that creates, regulates and holds the universe together; the very nature of belief molding our reality.
slim,
Sorry... that was a little bit incomprehensible...
DumbBlond,
I will give you my terms...
Reality- what you call interpretation
Truth- essential Truth
It is easier to communicate this way...
Truthseeker:
If it only were a conclusion , I meant it rather as a thought.
This idea has just come to light to me, you as almost everysingle person does, are making an assumption about the entirety based on knowledge.
Maybe if we leave all assumptions behind and look at what we realy percieve.
Knowledge of the planets and the stars is just text on a page and words from a teacher, knowledge of God(for you Theists) is just text on a page and words from a priest. You do not directly percieve these things, what you percieve is the world arround you.
It's nothing new, but just to put it in a different way, I'm suggesting that WE create this world arround us, we create the text and the words and the stars and the planets and heaven and hell. But ofcourse on a totaly different plane of conciousness. We feel the world rather than know the world, and it's the know part that creates the confusion while the feel part creates reality and according to knowledge feeling cannot contribute to reality and this is where the conflict comes in. For is it not true we are constantly in conflict with ourselves and each other.
Yes there are holes here, the question is then why is the world not perpect if we create it ourselves? Does it come down to the idea that I brought up in another thread that we are all one conciousness who got bored of limitlessness?
Another interseting question is, what comes first, the world or ourselves, at this moment are you percieving the computer infront of you or are you percieving your self infront of a computer.
Ahwell, I'm tired and uninspired right now, I can't muster up the energy required for complicated thought. I'll leave it at that, I just ask do not judge me for these words.
If it only were a conclusion
, I meant it rather as a thought.This idea has just come to light to me, you as almost everysingle person does, are making an assumption about the entirety based on knowledge.
Maybe if we leave all assumptions behind and look at what we realy percieve.
Knowledge of the planets and the stars is just text on a page and words from a teacher, knowledge of God(for you Theists) is just text on a page and words from a priest. You do not directly percieve these things, what you percieve is the world arround you.
It's nothing new, but just to put it in a different way, I'm suggesting that WE create this world arround us, we create the text and the words and the stars and the planets and heaven and hell. But ofcourse on a totaly different plane of conciousness. We feel the world rather than know the world, and it's the know part that creates the confusion while the feel part creates reality and according to knowledge feeling cannot contribute to reality and this is where the conflict comes in. For is it not true we are constantly in conflict with ourselves and each other.
Yes there are holes here, the question is then why is the world not perpect if we create it ourselves? Does it come down to the idea that I brought up in another thread that we are all one conciousness who got bored of limitlessness?
Another interseting question is, what comes first, the world or ourselves, at this moment are you percieving the computer infront of you or are you percieving your self infront of a computer.
Ahwell, I'm tired and uninspired right now, I can't muster up the energy required for complicated thought. I'll leave it at that, I just ask do not judge me for these words.
(Q),
I hope your abstarct thoughts are not phisical...
If they were, they would probably look a little bit Salvador Daliish...:bugeye:
I hope your abstarct thoughts are not phisical...
If they were, they would probably look a little bit Salvador Daliish...
:bugeye:truthseeker:
slim,
"Sorry... that was a little bit incomprehensible..."
:Variety of a language spoken by a group of people and having features of vocabulary, grammar, and/or pronunciation that distinguish it from other varieties of the same language. Dialects usually develop as a result of geographic, social, political, or economic barriers between groups of people who speak the same language. When dialects diverge to the point that they are mutually incomprehensible, they become languages in their own right~
Rhaa..Row.! now theres a dadburn Quandry, I take from the highest authority that knows me personally, which happens to be me.. that therein did lie the truth of what you said, not nessesarily the way you said it, but say it closely you did, enough in fact that I realized its ALL incomprehensible, and our dialect has diverged.. .."I HaTe It WhEn ThAt HappENs"!
..Yo.. and there ya have the truth, actually I was responding to the original theory as worst as I could and make it as simple of a singular sense as I truthfully could not and still be in the ball park here.. is that better?
...Actually I was checking your logic with looping truth.
quote: Slacker47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe negative existence... I have been pondering over this lately. It seems to me that existence would be the positive, so there must be a negative as well. If negative is beyond non-existence (because nonexistence is neutral) would this be a suspension of consciousness? A single thought trapped in oblivion? Would it be possible for you to be conscious, and know that you were conscious, but you couldn't think, move, or exist?
I cant figure this out because i have no prerequisites in physics or science, but if you think that you could help me out here with this one it would help. Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a negative existance? is anti matter. a possitive existance is posi matter! a trueizm, an Absolute! the truth positive! to exist is to Be present and accounted for, a negative is a non, or un or notta, Moot! there is no finish of, because it never began to. and being neutral is unheard of for something that never existed other than being a "word" of description for the opposite of a Given truth.
...."would this be a suspension of consciousness? A single thought trapped in oblivion?"
no, Consciousness has nothing in common with existance, you still exist as a Spirit encased in Flesh, which is posi-matter. A single thought is energy memorized, like on film and it is only one link of an endless Chain. one thought is a memory only!
....."Would it be possible for you to be conscious, and know that you were conscious, but you couldn't think, move, (or exist?")
no, if you are conscious, you can think, and you will also exist, which again is an absolute truth... until physical death that is.. even then you did exist at one time Physically also.. there is proof of it. movement being governed by existing Physical awareness, you were in existance still.
slim,
"Sorry... that was a little bit incomprehensible..."
:Variety of a language spoken by a group of people and having features of vocabulary, grammar, and/or pronunciation that distinguish it from other varieties of the same language. Dialects usually develop as a result of geographic, social, political, or economic barriers between groups of people who speak the same language. When dialects diverge to the point that they are mutually incomprehensible, they become languages in their own right~
Rhaa..Row.! now theres a dadburn Quandry, I take from the highest authority that knows me personally, which happens to be me.. that therein did lie the truth of what you said, not nessesarily the way you said it, but say it closely you did, enough in fact that I realized its ALL incomprehensible, and our dialect has diverged.. .."I HaTe It WhEn ThAt HappENs"!
..Yo.. and there ya have the truth, actually I was responding to the original theory as worst as I could and make it as simple of a singular sense as I truthfully could not and still be in the ball park here.. is that better? ...Actually I was checking your logic with looping truth.
quote: Slacker47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe negative existence... I have been pondering over this lately. It seems to me that existence would be the positive, so there must be a negative as well. If negative is beyond non-existence (because nonexistence is neutral) would this be a suspension of consciousness? A single thought trapped in oblivion? Would it be possible for you to be conscious, and know that you were conscious, but you couldn't think, move, or exist?
I cant figure this out because i have no prerequisites in physics or science, but if you think that you could help me out here with this one it would help. Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a negative existance? is anti matter. a possitive existance is posi matter! a trueizm, an Absolute! the truth positive! to exist is to Be present and accounted for, a negative is a non, or un or notta, Moot! there is no finish of, because it never began to. and being neutral is unheard of for something that never existed other than being a "word" of description for the opposite of a Given truth....."would this be a suspension of consciousness? A single thought trapped in oblivion?"
no, Consciousness has nothing in common with existance, you still exist as a Spirit encased in Flesh, which is posi-matter. A single thought is energy memorized, like on film and it is only one link of an endless Chain. one thought is a memory only!
....."Would it be possible for you to be conscious, and know that you were conscious, but you couldn't think, move, (or exist?")
no, if you are conscious, you can think, and you will also exist, which again is an absolute truth... until physical death that is.. even then you did exist at one time Physically also.. there is proof of it. movement being governed by existing Physical awareness, you were in existance still.
Last edited: