What's the concept of Truth?
Truth is the Essence of the Universe. The Universe is created by/from this Truth.

Everything that possibly can exist is "inside" the Truth. The possibilities are limitless and beyond our imagination. .Why? Because everything that you can imagine and more MUST be potentially possible!

The Truth is Neutral. Why? Because everything in the Universe has opposites. The Truth MUST have no opposites because the opposites are created by an illusion of separation from the Truth.

Now the Mystery of Existance... The Ultimate paradox.

The Truth is a Paradox!
Why?

Truth exists.
For something to exist, there must be an object and a subject. In this case, the Truth is the object... but who is the subject? Who observes the Truth? Do we do? First paradox...

Then... for the concept of existance to "exist", there MUST be a diametral opposite concept, the "non-existance".
If you say that "non-existance" doesn't exist, then, what's the concept of existance? One concept needs the other to exist. As Truth exists then, the Truth itself turns to be a paradox!!
The non-existance part of the Truth is the imagination, the potential creation, the unkonwn, what will someday, somewhere, somehow exist.

:bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye:

Perhaps I will post the Essential Laws of the Universe here... The enlightned ones will understand... The others no... :)
Those who know the children in their Hearts will understand...
Those who don't know and are proud of themselves won't understand the Truth... :)

:cool:

Love,
Nelson

What's the concept of Truth?

That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

Everything that possibly can exist is "inside" the Truth.

What about things that don't exist? Alien abductions? The Ooga-Booga? Where are they?

The possibilities are limitless and beyond our imagination. .Why?

I'm all a quiver... please do tell.

Because everything that you can imagine and more MUST be potentially possible!

That's the same line used in motivational seminars. Are you Anthony Robbins by chance?

Now the Mystery of Existance... The Ultimate paradox.

Sounds like the trailer from a bad sci-fi flic.

The Truth is a Paradox!
Why? Truth exists.{I}

So let me get this straight... what you're saying is, that which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence is a paradox. Stop paying your bills for a while. Paradox will come a knockin'.

For something to exist, there must be an object and a subject. In this case, the Truth is the object... but who is the subject? Who observes the Truth?

The observer would need to take careful measurements of the Truth and provide rational conclusions based on factual results. Thusly, the Truth would be exposed for all to observe.

Do we do?

Doo-wop doo-wop dit-dit-dit
Shoo-be-doo-waaaaaaa...

Then... for the concept of existance to "exist", there MUST be a diametral opposite concept, the "non-existance".

Diametral means diameter. You know, a straight line throught the middle of a circle.

If you say that "non-existance" doesn't exist, then, what's the concept of existance? One concept needs the other to exist. As Truth exists then, the Truth itself turns to be a paradox!!

Nope. Sorry. Didn't follow a word of that.

The non-existance part of the Truth is the imagination, the potential creation, the unkonwn, what will someday, somewhere, somehow exist.

Somewhere over the rainbow. Lets talk about cabbages and kings.

Perhaps I will post the Essential Laws of the Universe here... The enlightned ones will understand... The others no...

Could you at least try to explain them to the unenlightened ones... ta

Those who know the children in their Hearts will understand...
Those who don't know and are proud of themselves won't understand the Truth...

“Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative?E(W.S. Gilbert). ;)

Q - edited for one too many 'be's in my shoo-be-doo-waaaaa...

(Q),


Nope. Sorry. Didn't follow a word of that.

Yeah... I realized that... :rolleyes:

Love,
Nelson

Q,


Nope. Sorry. Didn't follow a word of that. Well of course not. Truthseeker meant all that as a joke, he does things like that. It would be just gibberish otherwise. Or maybe TS is just throwing random words at us hoping that they might arrange themselves into a meaningful order that we might recognize.

Cris

No Cris...
It's just hard for you to understand simple things... :rolleyes:

Truthseeker you don't have a strong enough grasp of the English language to try and say what you are saying.

The definition of truth is; Reality.

The definition of Reality is; Anything which is actual

The definition of Actual is; Existing, or not merely potential

The definition of To Exist is; To be in reality; actual.


Eventually you get to realizing that it's a loop and all we can say is:
'Reality is everything that's actual.'
'Reality is everything that's in Reality.'
'Reality is Reality'.

We have no definition for these things except that they are what they are. Then you come to thinking things like 'Reality is in the mind of the beholder'.

What's interesting is truthseekers ego. He seems to think that he holds all the answers already. Interseting eh?

Same with the scientific proof of a god. You know, you'd think if such a thing exists one of the brilliant scientists over the years would have figured it out by now.

My ego knows not more than you do...
But those things come from my Highter Self...

Yes... I don't have enought English for that. I try, at least...

Love,
Nelson

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
What's the concept of Truth?
Truth is the Essence of the Universe. The Universe is created by/from this Truth.
Everything that possibly can exist is "inside" the Truth. The possibilities .................................................. .......
Love,
Nelson

Great word Seeker, but nothing more thn tht. They are just words, with a complete lack of backup data.

let me try a little analysis;)


Truth is the Essence of the Universe. The Universe is created by/from this Truth universe is created from energy you could say. truth of whatever has no initial energy


Because everything that you can imagine and more MUST be potentially possible! and even tht what we can't , I could agree with you on this


Now the Mystery of Existance... The Ultimate paradox. I do not think existence is some kind of a paradox. There exist so many things.


For something to exist, there must be an object and a subject. In this case, the Truth is the object... but who is the subject? Who observes the Truth? Do we do? First paradox... if we are inside the truth we can't observe it



Then... for the concept of existance to "exist", there MUST be a diametral opposite concept, the "non-existance".
If you say that "non-existance" doesn't exist, then, what's the concept of existance? One concept needs the other to exist. As Truth exists then, the Truth itself turns to be a paradox!!
The non-existance part of the Truth is the imagination, the potential creation, the unkonwn, what will someday, somewhere, somehow exist.
a lot of gibberish, but if I immagine something , then it exists in my mind (in form of electro pulses and those are real things)

Perhaps I will post the Essential Laws of the Universe here... The enlightned ones will understand... The others no enlightnened in what?

Avatar,

I don't call Truth and intellectual one. I cal Truth...

The Source of Everything

That's for sure, the Hightest Energy possible...


if we are inside the truth we can't observe it

Good observation... :)


a lot of gibberish, but if I immagine something , then it exists in my mind (in form of electro pulses and those are real things)

I was just saying that if something is the Source of everything, it can't have limitations. Then, everything that we can imagine and that we can't, possibly exist somewhere... perhaps in a parallel Universe or such thing...


enlightnened in what?

In Wisdom...

Love,
Nelson

Seeker,

I don't call Truth and intellectual one. I cal Truth...
The Source of Everything
That's for sure, the Hightest Energy possible...
you can call it whatever you like, but there is no universal truth. everything is relative

Good observation it's science. you can not observe smth if you're a part of it or "inside" tht. fully observe to make undoubtful statement. tht's why we do not know so much about our universe. we can't look on it from a "distanced" point.

I was just saying that if something is the Source of everything, it can't have limitations actually no- "everything" could have it's limints. sure it's much, it's everything, but it is not limitless. tht's 50-50.
In Wisdom you didn't understand. wisdom is just a word. wisdom in what - make it more than just one word. describe tht very short.

cheers, Avatar!

No nelson, enlightened in your view on reality.

Like I said before you believe you have all the answers. I believe I don't.

You're using the word 'truth' when you should be using the word 'ooga-booga'.

Truth has an actual definition, so you're not allowed to change the definition to suit what you want it to be.

Every person on Earth has certain things they HAVE to beleive in to justify their morals or for any act really. I have to believe that love is possibly a life-long thing with another person, Cris doesn't need this. You, like many other people, HAVE to believe in this higher truth. I on the other hand, don't believe that there needs to be a higher truth. That the question - why are we here? - is stupid because I don't need their to be a reason for me to be on earth to enjoy my stay here.

In the case that I'm wrong, I believe my purpose here would be to take up space.

Avatar,


you can call it whatever you like, but there is no universal truth. everything is relative

Then, what make me see a computer in the same way you do, for example?


you didn't understand. wisdom is just a word. wisdom in what - make it more than just one word. describe tht very short.

Wisdom is Love. Wisdom can only be attained by Love and service.

Tyler,

I USE the definition of Truth to discover about It...

Love,
Nelson

(Q),

I was going to say something similar. Thank's for saving me the effort.

Shoop shoop diddy wop cumma cumma wang dang!

Truthseeker,

wis•dom \"wiz-d€m\ n [ME, fr. OE wïsdom, fr. wïs wise] 1 : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : KNOWLEDGE; also : INSIGHT 2 : good sense : JUDGMENT 3 : a wise attitude or course of action

truth \"trüth\ n, pl truths \"trüthz, "trüths\ 1 : TRUTHFULNESS, HONESTY 2 : the real state of things : FACT 3 : the body of real events or facts : ACTUALITY 4 : a true or accepted statement or proposition <the ~s of science> 5 : agreement with fact or reality : CORRECTNESS syn veracity, verity

Nope, I don’t see love mentioned in any of my dictionaries or encyclopedias as part of the definition of either of these words.

Looks like you are fantasizing again truthseeker.

As tyler quite rightly points out, you are not free to put your own definitions on words and expect others to know what you are talking about. If you think you have a valid point then make a case and give your reasoning. Blurting out that truth is x simple makes you look stupid. Make an effort or stay silent.

Cris

Cris...

Love is not the conception of the Truth, Love IS the Truth! Love is not just a word... it's much much more then that...

You'll NEVER find this in a dictionary...
But someday you shall find it in an encyclopedia or book... ;)

Love,
Nelson

Go back and read some neitzsche (I believe there's a thread on the man somewhere) and learn what language is.

You, truthseeker, do not have the ability to change the definition of words.

Oh God!!!!!

If I'm telling you that I don't change the definitions but I WORK if them!!!!!!!!!!!

I better get some holidays...

Truth is everything in reality.

You say Love is Truth.

So then rape and murder, which are in reality, are love?

Sorry Ty' I'm really confused by that one :confused:

He says 'Love is Truth'
the English definition of Truth is 'everything in reality'

so 'everything in reality' encorporates rape, murder

so what he's saying is:

Love is Rape, Murder...

People that do those things are far away from Love, from the Truth...

I'm talking about the Essential reality, not the manifestations. The manifestations can be far away from the Truth...

Love,
Nelson

English defintion of truth; 'everything in reality'

don't try changing it.

truthseeker,


I'm talking about the Essential reality, not the manifestations. You are talking in riddles. What the heck is essential reality?

Cris

truthseeker,


Love is not the conception of the Truth.What the heck does that mean? The words look like they should make sense but when strung together like this the phrase is meaningless.


Love IS the Truth! Gibberish!!!


Love is not just a word... it's much much more then that...

You'll NEVER find this in a dictionary...
But someday you shall find it in an encyclopedia or book...
love \lev\ n 1 : strong affection 2 : warm attachment <~ of the sea> 3 : attraction based on sexual desire 4 : a beloved person 5 : unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for others.

That seems like a reasonable dictionary definition of ‘love’.

You have been pushing ‘love’ on these forums since you arrived, as if it has some magical properties that only you appear to have observed.

From my observations of the way you use the term love I can only reach the following conclusions –

1. Your perception of love is based purely on a theoretical ideology.
2. You do not have any idea of what love means.
3. You have yet to experience love. Many people never do, and while that might seem sad, it really is no big deal.

Come back down to earth sometime and try for accuracy and precision so we won’t have to put up with your wild, bizarre, and outlandish claims.

Cris

That which is real, presumably.

Nelson;
It seems you need to define your terms a bit better. Love is truth? Truth is love? What?!

The sky is rather cloudy and dark here. That is true. 2=2. That is true.

Is that love? I don't think so.

Is love true? Obviously, in that it exists.

I love. This does not, however, give me a better handle on reality or truth. I comprehend no 'essential truth' when I love that I do not comprehend when I don't.

I think you have read a bit too much on Platonism, and not enough on Skepticism. Simply because an emotion feels good or feels strong does not make it an 'essential truth'.

Cris, Tyler, go easy on him. Two against one is never sporting, no matter how frustrating it can get.

Cris,


What the heck is essential reality?

Truth. A reality for everyone. What make me see a computer and you see a computer in the same way, instead of a pink flying elephant... :rolleyes:


What the heck does that mean? The words look like they should make sense but when strung together like this the phrase is meaningless.

Sorry, my mistake... "Love is not the concept of the Truth."
Means that Love is not a concept, I'm talking about the meaning Love, not the concept Love.


You have been pushing ‘love’ on these forums since you arrived, as if it has some magical properties that only you appear to have observed.

Love has incredible healing properties beyond your imagination. It's power is bigger then you can imagine.


1. Your perception of love is based purely on a theoretical ideology.

I base my perception purely in my spiritual experiences.


2. You do not have any idea of what love means.
I do... it seems pretty much that you don't...


3. You have yet to experience love. Many people never do, and while that might seem sad, it really is no big deal.
I experience Love and I've ever experienced it. In meditations, I've felt pure Love for all beings. In prayer, the same. Going out with my only ever girlfriend just made me experience Love in It's fullness.


Come back down to earth sometime and try for accuracy and precision so we won’t have to put up with your wild, bizarre, and outlandish claims.

I shouldn't say it here because you and other people will probably NOT understand it correctly but...
I'm in Earth and all over the Universe...

Love is not just a word. Feel it inside yourself and wake up for your true identity and reality.

Please... captilize the name of my God. ;)

Love,
Nelson

Xev,


I love. This does not, however, give me a better handle on reality or truth. I comprehend no 'essential truth' when I love that I do not comprehend when I don't.

Feel it truly inside yourself...
... that's hard to explain... there are no words to describe that...:(


I think you have read a bit too much on Platonism, and not enough on Skepticism. Simply because an emotion feels good or feels strong does not make it an 'essential truth'.

When you find Love inside yourself, without projecting It in someone else, you'll understand why Love is the Truth...

But you have to experience it!
I'm sorry, I can't prove it like that, you have to see with your own eyes...


Cris, Tyler, go easy on him. Two against one is never sporting, no matter how frustrating it can get.

Thanks Xev... but it's not needed...
Those who hold the Truth deep inside their Hearts won't feel down...

Love,
Nelson

truthseeker,


Please... capitalize the name of my God.I think you mean “Please... capitalize the name of my god”. The word ‘god’ is a simple noun, but the name of the Christian god is God (i.e. a proper noun).

As far as I know I have always used ‘god’ and ‘God’ correctly in the appropriate context at all times. It is of course entirely possible that I have made grammatical errors occasionally. Would you like me to point out any of your grammatical errors for you?

Perhaps what you meant to say was “Please... capitalize the name of God”. Where the implication is the Christian god.

Cris

truthseeker,


I shouldn't say it here because you and other people will probably NOT understand it correctly but...
I'm in Earth and all over the Universe... You are correct, you shouldn’t say it here. I hope one day you might reach a point where you can explain what you feel in terms that others can understand.

Until then, you appear as a hopeless dreamer.


Love is not just a word. Feel it inside yourself and wake up for your true identity and reality. Words portray meaning. The meanings of words have common agreements among people who share a common language. Effective communication is only possible when the agreed meanings of words are used accurately.

You are claiming that ‘love’ and ‘truth’ have quite different interpretations to those normally accepted.

Optimism, positive thinking, affection, etc have all been shown to relieve stress and significantly reduce the effects of many psychosomatic illnesses. Love can be understood within this context. There is nothing here beyond my imagination. And to claim there are such things then you need to show what I can imagine and prove your case. Can you do that?

Cris

T.S.

Did you start out by talking about the concept of love itself?
If so, what could be happening here is that people are getting confused by saying I love my car or my computer, When what you're saying is simply I love:D

Is that correct or did I just make all that up?

bbcboy,


Did you start out by talking about the concept of love itself?
If so, what could be happening here is that people are getting confused by saying I love my car or my computer, When what you're saying is simply I love

Pretty much that...

Cris, what I know is by my own experiences.

Love,
Nelson

Cris,

I meant MY God...
Which is pretty much the Christian God... and the Taoist... and Zen-Buddhist... Hinduist... Jewish...

Love,
Nelson

concept of love differs from the emotion of love?

explain.

a concept is just an idea. Once you put a word to a concept it becomes a word, representing a concept.

I meant MY God...
Which is pretty much the Christian God... and the Taoist... and Zen-Buddhist... Hinduist... Jewish...

A god of many faces. Or is it a face of many gods?

;)

Once you put a word to a concept it becomes a word, representing a concept.
And that is why the dictionary is not an holy Scripture, Tyler. Apart from that your (and (Q), Cris and the others their) criticism is just.
That's because Seekers reasoning fails. (if available)

No... it doesn't fail... it's just complex to understand in words...

It's the experience of Love I'm talking about, not the concept.

Love,
Nelson

Seems to be going in circles here. I'll be back when I'm less dizzy:bugeye:

And you're suggesting none of us have experienced love but you, at 18, know it and the ultimate truths?

And no, it's impossible to understand in words because you are changing the definition of words.

Tyler,


And you're suggesting none of us have experienced love but you, at 18, know it and the ultimate truths?

Actually... I know MY experience and I base everything I say on that experience. And I have much more experience then you can imagine...


And no, it's impossible to understand in words because you are changing the definition of words.

I'm not changing them...
I'm using metaphores to explain what words can't explain alone...

Love,
Nelson

Using a metaphor properly is something often reserved for gifted writers in a language they can fully speak.

More egotism. Amazing. "I have much more experience than you can imagine." Simply astounding. Besides the fact that you're basing that statement without a word of knowledge on my past, you also ignore the fact that in 32 EXTRA years on you, Cris probably has, oh, a taaaaad more experience than you.

You are pretty much like everyone...

Everyone thinks that experience has only to do with age. It hasn't. You don't get experience by getting older, you get experience by the number of problems and the number of challenges you ever had in your life.

Learn that... because most people don't know it...

Love,
Nelson

Nelson, tell me this:

Have you ever been abandoned, not once, but repeatedly, by the one you love?

Have you ever stuck by them nonetheless, because they needed you?

Have you ever made the conscious decision to no longer love that person, for your own sanity's sake?

Have you ever been dumped?

Have you ever dumped somone?

Have you ever loved, romantically, somone without ever sleeping with them?

Have you ever slept with somone (okay, this one's common - moving along -)

Have you ever been resolutly ignored by somone you love?

I am sure that, collectively, Cris, Tyler and I have had these experiances. Are you more experianced than the three of us?

Never been abandoned myself.

Yup, once.

Yes i have.

Yes!!!

Yes!!!

You bet. I'm 15 haha!

Yup. Though, and this is really no one's business but I don't mind saying, not with my present girlfriend.

Of course. I think damn near everyone has.

As for how many times I've experienced these things? Likely a lot less than you and Cris!

How about this one nelson; ever fallen in love with someone, had an experience with them and then had to watch them leave your life as both of you have no control over the situation? Knowing full well the chances of seeing each other are 1 in a billion?

How about this one nelson; ever fallen in love with someone, had an experience with them and then had to watch them leave your life as both of you have no control over the situation? Knowing full well the chances of seeing each other are 1 in a billion?

Oooh, almost. That's a nasty one.

See Nelson, we don't even need Cris, although I'm sure he's waaaaaay more experianced than us when it comes to love and sex.

So Nelson, we know all about the 'experiance of love'. And we don't agree.

Love is a complex emotion, and a wonderfull one. (Even I will admit that), but being complex and nice dosen't make love a supreme truth. Sex is complex and nice, waaay nicer than love in fact, but you don't claim it as a supreme truth. Shrimp vindaloo is complex and nice, yet - okay, being pedantic.

The intensity of a feeling is a poor guide to Truth.

"Have you ever been abandoned, not once, but repeatedly, by the one you love?"

Nope.

"Have you ever stuck by them nonetheless, because they needed you?"

Yep.

"Have you ever made the conscious decision to no longer love that person, for your own sanity's sake?"

Yep.

"Have you ever been dumped?"

Not really.

"Have you ever dumped somone?"

Not really.

"Have you ever loved, romantically, somone without ever sleeping with them?"

Absolutely.

"Have you ever slept with somone (okay, this one's common - moving along -)"

Slept, and other things.

"Have you ever been resolutly ignored by somone you love?"

Yep.

As for those "Not really"s, well, I've never had a nasty break-up. Every split has been amicable.

Aye, you're like me Adam, keep the exes around.

Still, I like ex-boyfriend/girlfriend jokes almost as much as I like dead baby jokes. But I'm weird that way. :D

I don't keep ex-girlfriends around at all. I don't dislike them or anything, I just don't have any contact with them. If I did, I have no idea if I would like it or not. I'm actually a complete moron when it comes to anything even vaguely emotional.

Truthseeker,


I meant MY God...
Which is pretty much the Christian God... and the Taoist... and Zen-Buddhist... Hinduist... Jewish... No you don’t understand yet.

One can refer to a deity as a god, or perhaps a goddess. The words ‘god’ and ‘goddess’ in this context are not capitalized (common nouns). However when we give a deity a name, for example – Apollo, then the name is capitalized in the same way that we would capitalize any name (proper noun).

The problem with Christianity is that it has confusingly named its deity - God.

So beware that god and God are both correct depending on the context. So remember that the name of your god is God. OK?

Cris

Truthseeker,


Everyone thinks that experience has only to do with age. It hasn't. You don't get experience by getting older, you get experience by the number of problems and the number of challenges you ever had in your life. Your logic is slipping again. Why are you so arrogant that you feel you can speak for everyone in the world? Or is it that you think you are the only one who is correct and the rest of the world is wrong?

But I digress.

There is a very strong correlation between age and experience. Life has an annoying habit of presenting problems whether they are sought or not so just by living a few decades pretty much ensures that experiences will occur. Consequently when one is young it necessarily follows that they will not have had enough time to achieve many experiences.

But neither time nor the number of challenges is important if learning doesn’t occur. For example a moron might read War and Peace and think it is a simple love story whereas someone with insight can read the ingredients on a packet of pasta and visualize a breakthrough in genetics.


Learn that... because most people don't know it... Speaking for others again huh? I strongly suspect that anyone with a little experience will find it quite obvious.

Cris

Truth exists.

No.

Truth is a property of something that exists. In particular, truth is a property of a proposition that exists.

However, truth does not exist, just as 'blue' does not exist and 'heavy' does not exist. The set of propositions that are 'true' does exist, just as the set of things that are 'blue' exists and the set of things that are 'heavy' exists. You are making a category error by equating 'truth' and 'the truth' (as the set of all 'true' propositions is called in conversation).

The love you are all talking about is not the one Nelson addresses. In this Nelson has been so perceptive to notice that most people do indeed confuse the two. (I have to give Nelson that.)
Probably this is the reason that love is spelled as Love. However, it is by no means certain that Love actually exists, and it is not just an idea of hopeless romanitics or followers of Jesus (and others).

I also have to admit that, when I was Nelson's age, I also believed to have gathered much wisdom. And I am glad I did, I have learned a lot from that period.

Well Merlijin, what love IS Nelson talking about?

I'm utterly confused. (That's chronic though ;) )

it's either that spiritual thingy: somthing like the ONEness with all. More like a state than an emotion.
or that religious harhar: close to charity, platonic love for all creation. the thing in I Corintians 13. It's more an ethical/religious insight than an emotion.
But hey, that's what I understood from (quite a lot of) 'Truth Seekers'.

Merlijn,

I don't see that Nelson has made any distinction between different types of love. I suspect you are trying to place rational interpretations on Nelson's statements, when there was no such intention on his part.

At the moment he is understandably lost in the forest of juvenile confusion and has no hope of seeing the whole forest; he is surrounded by too many trees (e.g. incomplete experiences, and half-truths).

If he is lucky his current infatuation with and indoctrination by religion will subside especially when he is hit by his first dose of reality, i.e. the realization that love is not what he imagines.

Cris

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TruthSeeker
What's the concept of Truth?

The concept of truth “in this world”, has to be, ‘that which is accepted as true’, therefore that truth is perceived as relative. But it cannot be the Absolute Truth, for that can only be one, and therefore neutral, in my opinion.

Everything that possibly can exist is "inside" the Truth. The possibilities are limitless and beyond our imagination.

Hear! Hear!
Can’t argue with that.

The Truth is a Paradox!

I think you are right, but only from our limited perspective.
There is truth in everything, as everything is in truth, for example if I say ‘I am the prime minister of England’ although I have lied, there is still truth in that statement. I, the post of prime minister and England are all truths, in that they do exist, but the falsehood is in that I have stated that I am the prime minister of England. Therefore my statement is false only in relation to the truth.

Truth exists.
For something to exist, there must be an object and a subject. In this case, the Truth is the object... but who is the subject?

I think what is seen to exist is an expression of the Absolute Truth. The Suprem Artist.
When an artist paints, what we are seeing is both real and not real. The expression of the artist is real, the canvas is real, but the object in the painting is not. The object can be observed in millions of ways, by as many people.
Their observations are real, insofar as they draw them from their experiences. The experiences we have are real according to our consciousness, so two people can see the same thing and have different experience. Therefore I believe the subject, although somewhat perverted, is also the truth, from our own limited experience.

Then... for the concept of existance to "exist", there MUST be a diametral opposite concept, the "non-existance".

But only in relation to existence, knowledge and understanding play a great part, through this we awaken our consciousness. Through developing our consciousness we can understand that there are things we can’t see, but do exist. So the concept of non-existence is actually a lack of knowledge. For example at some point in time, we are going to die, some would say that is the end of our existence, and according to their knowledge, they are right, we will cease to exist as our current personalities, but we won’t cease to exist. Our bodies will simply transform into earth, stool or ash. So there is no question of non-existence in truth, only as perceived by different people.

Love.

Jan Ardena.

1 Corinithians 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

Merlijn: An emotion is a state, is it not?

And Nelson has drawn parallels between emotional love and - this 'Love' he speaks of.

Cris:

If he is lucky his current infatuation with and indoctrination by religion will subside especially when he is hit by his first dose of reality, i.e. the realization that love is not what he imagines.

Correct. To live a life where one 'loves' the entire world, loves everything in it, is madness. It will lead to harm, that I am sure of.

Love can lead quite easily to pain.

Nelson, think of how easily you were harmed by an nasty comment Tony1 made. You will encounter much, much worse treatment in your life than a comment from a complete stranger whom you will never meet.

Is your current strategy working?

Xev,
Emotion is a state, True. But I guess you know what I was talking about. These are hard matters to put into words, especially when you are a non-native speaker (or writer for that matter). Again: it would be insane to love all, when you talk about the "everyday kind of love".... gosh. The love I am referrring to, and I think Nelson is as well resembles awe. Hmm I think that is fairly close.

Merlijn

I LOVE YOU
Merlijn!!!!!!!!!!

THAT'S IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:):):):):):):):):):)

Love,
Nelson

How do you love him ?:confused:

Sorry just mischief:rolleyes:

bbcboy,

As I Love everyone...
But I wanted to express it more, as he showed so much understanding of the world.

What's a little rare nowdays... :rolleyes:

Love,
Nelson

Truth is somehow related to reality, then the following has purtenance:

"Reality is whatever doesn't go away after you stop believing in it."
-- Philip K. Dick --

Take care, all ;)

Love is not truth. It may be part of the realization of truth but not truth itself.

The problem we have here is defining what TRUTH actauly is.
The way I see it, *it's fruitless trying to define truth, because truth is something that just IS.*
This statement cannot be argued against, and it cannot be argued for, the statement just is. And is therefore also true.
(oops, did I just argue for this statemet or didn't I, think about it)

i.e. 'Truth is neutral'.

Perhaps the major flaws in human thinking is that we only accept that which is Logical, and within our past experience. And Logic implys 'Everything' has to have a cause and a result, (as our friend Newton stated) 'every action has an opposite and equal reaction.' This states that everything has a begining and an end. Time? I think we can all agree that time did not just begin, Time just IS. It is what we use to describe the movement of particles that make up our perception of the world. TIME IS RELATIVE.
Did the universe just begin, nope, it just IS.
So to be logical we would have to assume that these statements were 'not true'.

So in a sense, the universe can also be called the TRUTH. And to observe the truth you must observe the entire universe as a whole.
And 'everything' in the universe(in truth) either exists or does not exist.
i.e. Existence and Non-existence
Think of it almost like negative integers.

;)

But my purpouse for this post is not to express an opinon on truth. But rather to question Logic and our way of thinking.


Gibberish I know. But the world is all just gibberish and we are at conflict with it and each other becasue we desprately try to find a supreme pattern in a huge string of randomness.

Maybe we all just need to let go and accept the world for being exactly what it appears to be. A random bunch of shit that just happens.

moonman,


Perhaps the major flaws in human thinking is that we only accept that which is Logical, and within our past experience.

But my purpouse for this post is not to express an opinon on truth. But rather to question Logic and our way of thinking.
See my thread..."The Meaninglessness of Conversation and The Puzzle of Life" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14350)


And Logic implys 'Everything' has to have a cause and a result, (as our friend Newton stated) 'every action has an opposite and equal reaction.' This states that everything has a begining and an end.

I do believe that action and reaction are true though. They are laws that create this illusional universe around us. Remember that even though an illusion is an illusion, the existance of this illusion is a Truth...! The illusion IS an illusion, but the fact that we can perceive it implies that it is true. However, the way we see it will differ from person to person as the illusion is a matter of perspective, based on past experiences and whatever information you have inside your brain.

The illusion does exist, but the illusion itself is not the Truth.;)

Mind bending, eh? :p


Time? I think we can all agree that time did not just begin, Time just IS. It is what we use to describe the movement of particles that make up our perception of the world. TIME IS RELATIVE.
Did the universe just begin, nope, it just IS.
So to be logical we would have to assume that these statements were 'not true'.

You are right there. There's no past present and future, there's just IS. The reason why we measure space-time it is because that's the only way our brains can work. Our brains can't measure something that is infinite, it is beyond it's capacity as the brain, itself, has its own physical limitations. To really understand the universe, we must not limit it in our brains. We need to expand our concept of reality and realize that if the universe had any limits, our existance would probably not even be possible....


Gibberish I know.

No, that's awesome! :)
I Love when people try to figure out the universe, instead of accepting the general "normal" view... :)
I Love discussing philosophy... :)

:D

Here's another thought.
if you consider the conventional and most accepted theory, that the universe started with a 'Big Bang' and that 'in the end' all the forces working on each other will bring all the matter in the universe into one point again in one huge blackhole. That matter might just explode in a bigbang again. And since , as far as we know, there are no forces effecting matter other than the ones we know of (and those reside in the universe). When the big bang happens again, everything will come to pass in EXACTLY in the same way as before and has been doing that forever.

And something else that I've been immagining since childhood is that the universe (since I learnt about BB) was just an explosion like a fire-cracker and that it only exitsts in the form we see it for about 0.5 seconds in a world of other people to whom we are just sub-attomic particles. That the plantes are electrons circling arround the nucleus(Stars) in an endlessly huge universe which is in it's turn a universe within a universe and that our atomic particles are all planet and stars etc.
Mind Boggeling.:bugeye:

And because it can be immagined it must be possible right.:D

Love is not truth. It may be part of the realization of truth but not truth itself
To realize the truth you must first realize love is a lie. Truth is objective, love is not... Thus the only objective truth we can have concerning love is that it is not true.

I'm not talking about common human love...

How could you know anything more?

there is paradox to truth for sure. while events may be the same, meaning is assigned by the observer. the meaning is the truth. so the truth is multiple perspectives simultaneously. no wait, the real truth is that the truth is multiple perspectives simultaneously. wait... truth is fractal? just recursive? fractals are recursive? I'm on crack? Definately could be crack.

is this truth?:

the universe exists because it is possible for the universe to exist.

notme2000,


How could you know anything more?

I'm not limited by my own mind, will and emotions.


wesmorris,

Thanks for coming back to subject... ;)


there is paradox to truth for sure. while events may be the same, meaning is assigned by the observer. the meaning is the truth. so the truth is multiple perspectives simultaneously. no wait, the real truth is that the truth is multiple perspectives simultaneously. wait... truth is fractal? just recursive? fractals are recursive? I'm on crack? Definately could be crack.

My initial propose is:

Reality: meaning is assigned by the observer. The observer looks to the world and interpret it using his own mind, thus limiting it into his own knowledge. It's like trying to put an ocean inside a little cup... you won't succeed, you will lose most of it. Reality is created by the perspective of one's mind, will and emotions, while observing, analizing and interpreting the world around him/her.

This implies that whenever someone interpret the world with his own mind, this person is actually seeing an illusion. This person is looking to the circumstances rather than the laws that are behind them. People usually look to someone's actions and try to interpret one's intentions through one's actions. The problem with that is that anyone is perfect. One might have one intention, and while trying to do it, this person might do the wrong action. Then, the observer will believe that this person intented to do that action. That's just an example of how it works...

Truth: a reality that is true to everyone. The Truth can't be attained by the mind, since the mind is limited by its own perpective and its own past experiences and ideas. For someone to find the Truth, one must not try to interpret the world, but rather try to have a more impartial and less analitical view of it. It may not be very simple to do, but it's the only way I currently know.

For more... trey this thread...
"The Meaninglessness of Conversation and The Puzzle of Life"
(http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14350)


is this truth?:

the universe exists because it is possible for the universe to exist.
Possible is not equal to probable...
Something that is possible might not happen. Possible means: 50% of chance of happening.

If the universe exists because it is probable for the universe to exist... Maybe...

I'm not limited by my own mind, will and emotions
I think you are, your mind, emotions and WILL created this belief.

notme2000,


I think you are, your mind, emotions and WILL created this belief.

I HAVE mind, will and emotions and I'm NOT totally subjected to them. If I were limited to them, how can I see a greater picture of the world. If I, myself, told you alll that, how can I be lost?

I HAVE mind, will and emotions and I'm NOT totally subjected to them. If I were limited to them, how can I see a greater picture of the world.
Through your mind. You can give it mysterious names and make it sacred, but it is still just your mind.

What are the limitations of mind, emotion and will as oposed to the "something more" you describe?


If I, myself, told you alll that, how can I be lost?
I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning...

Truthseeker

If I were limited to them, how can I see a greater picture of the world

That's it exactly - you don't see a greater picture of the world. You may think you do but that is simply because your narrow worldview is limited to yourself and your religious beliefs. That is apparent from your statement:


However, the way we see it will differ from person to person as the illusion is a matter of perspective, based on past experiences and whatever information you have inside your brain.

notme2000,


Through your mind. You can give it mysterious names and make it sacred, but it is still just your mind.

Don't you get that I don't have a set of beliefs? I'm describing what I'm seeing from all that. I'm not looking at the world and saying all those things, I'm looking beyond my eyes. I'm not letting my mind judge the world. I'm seeing as it is... not perfectly yet, but I will eventually get there. What I have been saying is that since we interpret the world trough our own eyes, we create only illusions. What I'm doing is to go beyond what I see.


What are the limitations of mind, emotion and will as oposed to the "something more" you describe?

Mind, will and emotions are limited because the brain is limited. You are limited by your own experience and your own thoughts - you judge the world using them. Since we don't have the same experieces and thoughts, we live in two different realities. What I'm trying to do is to tell you that I'm fighting to go beyond the limitations of my own mind. I'm trying to make you conscient of the limitations of your own mind so that you can overcome it and see it by yourself.


I'm afraid I don't understand your meaning...

YOu are judging me by what I've said. You accepted what I said and then put me into those limitations. However, if I'm conscient about those limitations, how can I be subjected to them?

I guess it all come down to an elegant dance of probabilities?
There are no right answeres or wrong answeres, just illusions.
But to see beyond the illusion one must first realize the illusion and this means transcending our apparent reality and observing it from outside our self-imposed limitations.

Perhaps searching for truth basing our belief on knowledge from within the illusion, only brings us deeper into it's world and makes it harder for us to dettach ourselves?

BTW. If my ideas seem jumbled and incoherrent and different from post to post, it's only because I am trying to be totaly open-minded towards any ideas that may come up.
I wish I had structure.:D

(Q),



If I were limited to them, how can I see a greater picture of the worldIf I were limited to them, how can I see a greater picture of the world

That's it exactly - you don't see a greater picture of the world. You may think you do but that is simply because your narrow worldview is limited to yourself and your religious beliefs. That is apparent from your statement:


However, the way we see it will differ from person to person as the illusion is a matter of perspective, based on past experiences and whatever information you have inside your brain.


Not exactly. The thing is that you are judging me. You think, by your own experience that I'm using my beliefs to determine what is true. However, I'm not. What I'm seeing from all this is compelty separate from whatever set of beliefs I ever had. I'm looking through it. I'm not using my miond (even though to express it, I must first pass the information through my mind to pass it to you, in words...:bugeye: )

It seems that everyone here believes that I'm using my Christian beliefs here...

Don't you get that I don't have a set of beliefs? I'm describing what I'm seeing from all that. I'm not looking at the world and saying all those things, I'm looking beyond my eyes.
The only way a human can see beyond his eyes is with his mind. If you truly believe you can see outside your limitations, that is your ego, a part of your MIND.

Mind, will and emotions are limited because the brain is limited. You are limited by your own experience and your own thoughts - you judge the world using them. Since we don't have the same experieces and thoughts, we live in two different realities. What I'm trying to do is to tell you that I'm fighting to go beyond the limitations of my own mind. I'm trying to make you conscient of the limitations of your own mind so that you can overcome it and see it by yourself.
I see my limitations, and I expand them. But I will always have limitations none the less. And so will you. You are not seeing the world as is, you are letting emotions and intuition be the governing factors in your judgement. But emotion and intuition is subjective, so the most you can hope to get from it is a subjective truth (ie, seeing beyond your limitations, it'd be nice if that was possible, but in the objective truth of the universe you have your limitations and will forever be confined by them). The truth you seek is one you can cope with. Power to you. But don't try to convince other's it is THE truth, it is but your way of life.

YOu are judging me by what I've said. You accepted what I said and then put me into those limitations. However, if I'm conscient about those limitations, how can I be subjected to them?
Do you not put me in limitations by what I've said. I am aware of them, does this mean I am not still confined by them? If you don't want me to judge you by what you say, be careful with your words.

Truthseeker

What I have been saying is that since we interpret the world trough our own eyes, we create only illusions.

This is complete nonsense. We don't JUST interpret the world through our eyes - there are other senses which comprise us humans. And it is only irrational people who create illusions.

What I'm doing is to go beyond what I see.

This is only possible in your mind. One can only "see" what is placed in ones view.

Since we don't have the same experieces and thoughts, we live in two different realities.

People may not experience the same things exactly but they do experience much of the same things with similarity. There is only ONE reality.

moonman,


I guess it all come down to an elegant dance of probabilities?
There are no right answeres or wrong answeres, just illusions.
But to see beyond the illusion one must first realize the illusion and this means transcending our apparent reality and observing it from outside our self-imposed limitations.

Perhaps searching for truth basing our belief on knowledge from within the illusion, only brings us deeper into it's world and makes it harder for us to dettach ourselves?

BTW. If my ideas seem jumbled and incoherrent and different from post to post, it's only because I am trying to be totaly open-minded towards any ideas that may come up.
I wish I had structure.

That's awesome!!! You got it!!!!!!!!!:):):)
That's exactly what I said. :) Now I'm more encouraged to continue...:)

I'm not using my miond (even though to express it, I must first pass the information through my mind to pass it to you, in words... )
Then what are you using? A soul? This sounds like christian beliefs to me...

notme2000 and (Q),

See moonman's post (or the post above... :) )

Perhaps searching for truth basing our belief on knowledge from within the illusion, only brings us deeper into it's world and makes it harder for us to dettach ourselves?
So you THINK (mind) that you can get outside yourself? Every thought you have is based on things within the mind, every decision you make is based on experience of the past, within your mind. You may THINK you are drawing knowledge from the world outside you, but it is passing through you mind, and these ARE your limitations.

notme2000,

He limited as he has to go through his mind before he can put it into words. What you don't know (because you didn't try it yet, you questioned it over and over again...) is that before we write to you, we go beyond our minds to find what we write to you. We actually throw out all our beliefs and past experiences to come to this realization. You are still attached to yours, so you cannot see it.

Ok... let me try to make it easier for everyone to understand that.

In order for me to communicate my ideas to you, I must first pass it through my mind so that I can limit it into words. What happens in your mind is that you believe that it came from my mind, but it only passed through it so that the idea could be communicated. Without passing the idea through my mind it is completly impossible for me to communicate it. Your mind create the illusion that what I say comes from my mind. Simple as that.

that before we write to you, we go beyond our minds to find what we write to you.
And my argument is that what you concider going beyond your mind is in fact going through your mind, and thinking that it's coming from beyond your mind is a product of your mind as well. I have evidence (psychology) to back me up. Even if I didn't, my claims could still very well be true. If you truly are a truth seeker you must constantly admit the possibility you could be wrong, correct?

"An idea is not something the mind posesses, it is something that posesses the mind"

I admit I may be wrong. But I think my opinion is the one most likely to be true, and that's the most we have to work with right now. You can claim you KNOW you're right, but that's just a product of your ego (mind). You can claim you've experience things before, I say that's an illusion created by your mind. But I still find that powerful. Just because meaning lies within does not change what meaning is. Just where it comes from. I'm sure you see me as a cold and shut off person, because I'm closed off to the mysteries in life. I don't find beauty in mystery. I find beauty in clarity. And no matter what it is, I find it beautiful. Even if that means we have no soul and we are not only confined, but DEFINED by our limitations... I still find it beautiful, because it's the truth... It seems if you were a truth seeker you would have this attitude as well. I don't see it as probable that the truth would cater to a single species (us) or life at all for that matter.

Truthseeker

See moonman's post

If I were responding to moonman's post, I would direct comment towards him. I am responding to you so please don't direct your responses to other members posts.

That simply shows you have no original thoughts of your own.

notme2000,

So... you accept my ideas that our minds limit ourselves and create illusions but you say that I, myself, I'm being subjected to those illusions? If I have conscience of the fact that my mind causes me to interpret the world creating an illusion, how can I still be subjected to those illusions. If I'm seeing the whole ocean, how can I be inside it?!? :confused:

If you say that my ideas of perspective illusion are right (and it seems so, as you use them to express your own ideas of me beeing illuded), then how can I still be illuded? Do you see that at the same time you agree that I'm saying the Truth, but you also say that I'm subjected to the illusions? Think about it...

(Q),


If I were responding to moonman's post, I would direct comment towards him. I am responding to you so please don't direct your responses to other members posts.

That simply shows you have no original thoughts of your own.
Moonman has better English then I do. It will be easier for you to understand him than to understand me. Besides that, I always encourage those who understand me.

Truthseeker

It will be easier for you to understand him (moonman) than to understand me.

That is of course, if one could understand moonman. :D

If I have conscience of the fact that my mind causes me to interpret the world creating an illusion, how can I still be subjected to those illusions. If I'm seeing the whole ocean, how can I be inside it?!?
Quite easily. The illusion is, you don't see the whole ocean.

If you say that my ideas of perspective illusion are right (and it seems so, as you use them to express your own ideas of me beeing illuded), then how can I still be illuded? Do you see that at the same time you agree that I'm saying the Truth, but you also say that I'm subjected to the illusions? Think about it...
I have, alot. My final deduction: I don't know and either do you. The only truth we can say for sure is that we don't know the truth. On this basis, I place my "beliefs" with the theory with most evidence, NOT which works best for me. To reach the truth we have to take baby steps. I'm not egotistical enough to think I'll ever understand the whole truth, see the whole ocean. I just want to see as much as I can. I doubt anyone in the human race will ever understand the nature of this universe.

notme2000,

Well... I'm certainly not seeing the whole ocean, but I'm not inside the water anymore...

You can't agree with my idea and still disagree that it is an illusion. The "idea" itself is not an illusion...

Well... I'm certainly not seeing the whole ocean, but I'm not inside the water anymore...
How can you know?

The "idea" itself is not an illusion...
Again, how can you know? That's the thing about illusions, they're mistaken for reality.

Alas, I must be off Truthseeker. It's been fun.

Your are right on that... :D;)

But the probability that it is true is greater then the probability then it's wrong... ;)

I'm glad we understand each other TS. :D

I don't think I could describe it in any other way as I don't fully understand it all myself yet. But I want to learn.

To those who believe this is all just self righteous ego tripping.
I don't claim to see or understand anymore than the next person. I don't want to compare myself to anyone besides myself, and neither should you.
And I don't believe TS does either.:D

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
notme2000,



I'm not limited by my own mind, will and emotions.


wesmorris,

Thanks for coming back to subject... ;)



My initial propose is:

Reality: meaning is assigned by the observer. The observer looks to the world and interpret it using his own mind, thus limiting it into his own knowledge. It's like trying to put an ocean inside a little cup... you won't succeed, you will lose most of it. Reality is created by the perspective of one's mind, will and emotions, while observing, analizing and interpreting the world around him/her.

This implies that whenever someone interpret the world with his own mind, this person is actually seeing an illusion. This person is looking to the circumstances rather than the laws that are behind them. People usually look to someone's actions and try to interpret one's intentions through one's actions. The problem with that is that anyone is perfect. One might have one intention, and while trying to do it, this person might do the wrong action. Then, the observer will believe that this person intented to do that action. That's just an example of how it works...

Truth: a reality that is true to everyone. The Truth can't be attained by the mind, since the mind is limited by its own perpective and its own past experiences and ideas. For someone to find the Truth, one must not try to interpret the world, but rather try to have a more impartial and less analitical view of it. It may not be very simple to do, but it's the only way I currently know.

For more... trey this thread...
"The Meaninglessness of Conversation and The Puzzle of Life"
(http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14350)


Possible is not equal to probable...
Something that is possible might not happen. Possible means: 50% of chance of happening.

If the universe exists because it is probable for the universe to exist... Maybe...

you've got it mostly right, but consider this: if something has a probability greater than zero... like 0.0000000000000000000000001 or smaller then the longer you got without it happening, the more probable it becomes.

Now if you extrapolate that out over infinite time, then the universe is because there existed a probability that it could. at least that's a thought on the issue.

wesmorris,

You heard about the Shakespeare's Monkey theory, didn't you? Let me post this again...
http://www.nutters.org/docs/monkeys

And this one too... :D
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1134/monkeys.html

interesting links. nicely done on both of them.

he certainly committed to his premise. i will only add that the application of statistics is only as good as the information about the architecture of the system to which it is being applied.

oh yeah, and I was only trying to sound all wise and junk (and make a point about truth) when I said that probability stuff. I'm trying kind of to say that truth is pardoxical because in a way in defines itself... it for one, it can exist but if it is not observed it means utterly nothing. even then, only can only know this truth through emotions (spirituality, whatever), so the abstract of truth, which seems to be only attainable through reason, can only truly be felt through emotions. that's just counterintuitive, but yet, maybe it's true.

that is: one can really only use reason to arrive at a truth, it takes a leap of faith (not necessarily in god, just existence, "you have to assume that your foot is real" so to speak) to call it true.

hum...
How old are you?
And...
Without offense... you don't seem much philosophical... are you trying to be...?

I assume you're talking to me.


Originally posted by TruthSeeker
hum...
How old are you?

I'm 33.

And...
Without offense... you don't seem much philosophical... are you trying to be...?

I'm not sure what you mean? You don't think I'm wise? Is that what you mean? Well, I'm trying to seek wisdom. In that endeavor I try to be wise but realize the ultimate folly of the attempt.

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.

You sound wise to me because you realize you have alot to learn. We all do. Only the wise realize how little they know.

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... ;)

...until go to heaven and God reveal everything...
IF... ;)

I havent read any of other peoples thoughts... sorry


Then... for the concept of existance to "exist", there MUST be a diametral opposite concept, the "non-existance".

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

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?

sorry, screwed up. was trying to start a thread. pardon. the post wouldn't delete.

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?

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)

Truth is constant.....it is the interpretation of truth that changes. No matter how many interpretations there are there is always one essential truth....which more often than not gets lost in history.

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

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,


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?

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.


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?

That's a good conclusion. :)


moonman,


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?

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...:confused:


DumbBlond,


Truth is constant.....it is the interpretation of truth that changes. No matter how many interpretations there are there is always one essential truth....which more often than not gets lost in history.

I will give you my terms...
Reality- what you call interpretation
Truth- essential Truth
It is easier to communicate this way...

Truthseeker

Only because it doesn't exist phisically, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

That is the very essence of existence; the physical. They are one and the same. If it can not be shown to be physical, then it does not exist.

Sorry... that was a little bit incomprehensible...

Aahhh, this coming from Nelson is just choice. :)

Truthseeker:

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...

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...:eek:
If they were, they would probably look a little bit Salvador Daliish... :D:bugeye:

a little bit Salvador Daliish...

Excellent guess!

:)

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"!
:cool: ..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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:D 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,

Still imcomprehensible... :D

quote: truthseeker
That is Slacker47's quote, not mine...


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.

You have a very poetic language...:rolleyes: :D :eek:


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!
Ummm... I could assume you are a Christian... or at least spiritual in some way...
A rock as no conscience, but still exist. That's right... However, consciousness give us our free will... ;)

:o TruthSeeker, Many Pardons for my lapse of accute quotational correctness, If you can ever so graciously accept my Humble appologies.. I Shall not dither nor tary long on this search for the elusive truth that has become such an Ardoo-us Task being Fomented by an unknown film of sticky goo.. Hummm* my gum escaped the portal whilst talking Substance of great value.. A genius should never chew gum.. (I'll Jot this down) :D for later research..

Yep TruthSeeker, I'm Spiritual, a poet sometimez..(thanks for the compliment).. wouldn't call myself a Christian Per Se. Though I was rasied in Church sorta.. Granpa was a preacher. I have an Open Concept of The power, Creator...'s? I also Believe we should act like a doctor and heal thyself, to seek the truth and it shall set you free! to boldly go where no Man hath ever really wanted to go.. and be seen openly in public! (Jokey) :cool: LoL.. been there, done it twicet..

but I firmly feel the truth to be self evident, not to be made, but to be discovered, uncovered, Wipe the dust off it and display it proudly.. Ponder things wisely, equally, Fairly, and live By those rules, then the truth is not so elusive nor dim. The power of Mankind is missdirected to futile Whims and Dreams, selfishness and greed. I wonder about Everything, a need to dissect, peel the layers away.. it Would Help if I Could spell...hehe.. but I kin reed jest finne.. arrival at the truth is like a jelly donut, it dependably Squishes out the same. Howzz..zat For Brainpower? Awesome.. I feel a trance comin on..

That's better... I understood everything but your first paragraph... :D

Yeah... I agree with you...:)
The problem when we realize this...

The power of Mankind is missdirected to futile Whims and Dreams, selfishness and greed.
...is that you no longer want to be a part of society, or at least, do what mankind do. Then you have a real problem - how will you live in society?:confused: :eek:

That's is my problem rigth now. I have to go to university, but what will I do if I don't agree with anything? How will I live? I also discussed that in the thread "Who is crazy?" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14214)... take a look.. ;)

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
That's better... I understood everything but your first paragraph... :D

Yeah... I agree with you...:)
The problem when we realize this...

...is that you no longer want to be a part of society, or at least, do what mankind do. Then you have a real problem - how will you live in society?:confused: :eek:

That's is my problem rigth now. I have to go to university, but what will I do if I don't agree with anything? How will I live? I also discussed that in the thread "Who is crazy?" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14214)... take a look.. ;)

well, Living "in" society or "with" society, I think are two different aspects of Living. Acceptance of the rules of mankind is the shortest route to peace with mankind, however, you have the power to use your newfound knowledge to better yourself for certain, and also to express yourself in a way that could concievably change the rules you don't agree with! Be patient in your quest of the truth, accept what you know to be true and final, yet save energy for the questions that pose themselves as dark and ugly, like living in or with society. Do not let those drain the energy needed to be at peace with your soul. Let me Share something old with you that has been a guide for me for many years. the author is unknown to me, but it is a good read..


Desiderata

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence. Go As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and ignorant; they too have their story. Avoid loud and aggressive persons; they are vexations to the spirit. If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. Keep interested in your own career, however humble, it's a real possession in the changing fortunes of time. Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery. But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals, and everywhere life is full of heroism. Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. Neither be cynical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantement, it is as perrenial as the grass. Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth. Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here. And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should. Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive him to be. And whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.

Hard...
Not so easy to live "with" society without living "in" it...!:eek:

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Hard...
Not so easy to live "with" society without living "in" it...!:eek:

Only if you confuse the two. Living "With" society is maintaining your own world while coping with "Their" world to a degree of postitive satisfaction to yourself and prospering while doing both. living "In" Society is narrowing your world to "Theirs" only, and wishing for the best with others at the controls. Be a leader, not a follower.

I understood that. What I meant is that whoever tries to change the world usually get killed or become insane, or something like that... :(