3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Wow! "It's just the way our brain processes what it sees. Nothing special at all." How dismissive! ????

 

How the brain processes images is an important issue that I find interesting.
The reason I posted that image of a negative was to get feed-back from people who might never have been involved in processing images, as well as providing an example of a type of 'projection', in response to Sunmaster's arguments.

 

I'm still wondering if the beautiful results I see on the ceiling are due to my having spent quite a bit of time in the past scanning and re-scanning, and processing and re-processing negative film. In other words, my mind has been tuned to getting the best results I can.

Anyone can do it, ergo not special at all. Not even difficult.

18 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I do not need to aggree in everything,

Free will.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Free will.

Is it? Are you really sure that is free will? Just imagine how easy it would have been to find someone or something and aggree with it 100%.  Wouldnt that be a beautiful thing? Saved alot of energy and wasted time on dissagrements. 

On 9/5/2020 at 4:11 AM, VincentRJ said:

Mathematics is a very useful human construct that has enabled us to achieve so much in science and technology. It's an abstract concept that can be applied when we separate things into an 'either/or' situation, with boundaries. That's human reality but not necessarily 'absolute reality'.

I agree that our mathematics is a human construct, but I also think that an alien civilisation that's equally advanced as we are, would also be using some form of maths to describe how the universe works. Obviously their math wouldn't look anything like ours, but I think some parts would be similar, since the law of physics will be the same in their location.

For example c the speed of light is used all the time in maths for science, and since the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all reference frames, then the aliens will be using some value for it. It wont be the same as ours but I'm sure they will be using some units of distance divided by some units of time and if it was converted to km/s then it would have a value close to our 300,000 km/s.

 

Also, us humans when using maths for science we always keep to the same units when doing our calculations otherwise the final answers would be meaningless and incorrect. These are usually the SI base units like:

metres (m) for distance 

kilograms (kg) for mass

seconds (s) for time  

ampere (A) for electric current

 

Sticking to the same units throughout calculations is crucial in physics, so I think the aliens would be using similar techniques in their interpretation of mathematics. That's my take on it anyway ???? 

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Perhaps it might help if you give me your definition of aHin observation. My understanding is that an observation requires an observer. No observer = no observation.

Ok, I realise that this is not too easy to explain, but I try.

In brief, if I'm sitting on the lawn and watching the sunset, I am observing the sunset, right ?

Not too far away, there is a cow, observing the sunset as well.

Somebody, not too far away, is observing me and the cow observing the sunset.

Now, would you say that, while watching the sunset, the cow is having the same experience as me ?

My point is, there are infinite levels of "observation", depending on many different factors.

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm still wondering if the beautiful results I see on the ceiling are due to my having spent quite a bit of time in the past scanning and re-scanning, and processing and re-processing negative film. In other words, my mind has been tuned to getting the best results I can.

I tried your experiment, just to check if my eyes are working properly, and yes, they are.

It's absolutely normal, every well constructed human eye works in the same way.

Yet, I agree with the fact that it's fascinating, and it surprises me every time I do something similar.

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

My point is, there are infinite levels of "observation", depending on many different factors.

I just came across a short sentence by J.W. Goethe, genius of a man.

" Everyone listens to just what he can understand".

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Now, would you say that, while watching the sunset, the cow is having the same experience as me ?

Something we can't find out. 

We can only assume. 

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I just came across a short sentence by J.W. Goethe, genius of a man.

" Everyone listens to just what he can understand".

Define listening? 

 

If you look up to someone, who explaining something you will listen even you do not aggree or understand? If you do not understand you will strive to understand it?

 

an example is lyrics and poems, even we do not understand, we will listen and the same with teachers ad gurus. Of course religious complicated texts with multiplied meanings is a challenge as well, and stimulate some of us to digg deeper, as for others complicated math, etc. 

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, I realise that this is not too easy to explain, but I try.

In brief, if I'm sitting on the lawn and watching the sunset, I am observing the sunset, right ?

Not too far away, there is a cow, observing the sunset as well.

Somebody, not too far away, is observing me and the cow observing the sunset.

Now, would you say that, while watching the sunset, the cow is having the same experience as me ?

My point is, there are infinite levels of "observation", depending on many different factors.

I have never disputed such a point. In fact I've already stated in previous posts that what the observer perceives is dependent upon the characteristic of the observer, the species of the observer and the genetic variations within that species.

 

The point that I've been making recently, is that what is observed is inseparable from the observer. If you separate what is observed from the observer, there is no observation. Reality is a continuum between the observed and the observer, therefore, there is no 'absolute reality' that we can be aware of, because everything we observe is, in a sense, contaminated by the observer. Got it? ????
 

1 hour ago, Tagged said:

Define listening? 

If you look up to someone, who explaining something you will listen even you do not aggree or understand? If you do not understand you will strive to understand it?

an example is lyrics and poems, even we do not understand, we will listen and the same with teachers ad gurus. Of course religious complicated texts with multiplied meanings is a challenge as well, and stimulate some of us to digg deeper, as for others complicated math, etc. 

" Everyone listens to just what he can understand" - the German quote by Goethe actually says 

Es hört doch jeder nur, was er versteht

A better more accurate translation of that sharp 'observation' would be

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Reality is a continuum between the observed and the observer, therefore, there is no 'absolute reality' that we can be aware of, because everything we observe is, in a sense, contaminated by the observer. Got it? ????
 

Agree with the above.

But finally is very clear where we disagree.

I don't say now that "there is an absolute reality", but there's no way you can prove that it doesn't exist.

Actually I think there is an "absolute reality " but at the moment, I cannot prove it to you.

Perhaps we could agree that different realities need different instruments to be perceived, and I don't mean exclusively physical instruments, or tools.

Like the example of few posts above, you may perhaps concede that your mental tools are a bit more complex than those of the cow, but a casual observer might notice just you and the cow watching the sunset. Got it?????

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Agree with the above.

But finally is very clear where we disagree.

I don't say now that "there is an absolute reality", but there's no way you can prove that it doesn't exist.

Actually I think there is an "absolute reality " but at the moment, I cannot prove it to you.

Perhaps we could agree that different realities need different instruments to be perceived, and I don't mean exclusively physical instruments, or tools.

Like the example of few posts above, you may perhaps concede that your mental tools are a bit more complex than those of the cow, but a casual observer might notice just you and the cow watching the sunset. Got it?????

When we do not know, do you aggree we create a vacum by creating belief system that claims to know the truth. We are pissing in our pants when its cold. Feels good and warm for a second, but then, you realize it was stupid. 

 

The same with belief systems that have no proof, it feels right at the beginning, but after awhile it takes more energy to keep it alive and keep the doubts away, involving endless talks, debates and now lately also in internet foras. 

 

All this searching is a symptom of something missing in life, and its like eating sugar, gives you a high for a short while, and the need for sugar 
develops proportionally with the more you learn and think you understand, but still something is missing, and you need to take it further and further to get closer to the truth. 

25 minutes ago, Tagged said:

...

The same with belief systems that have no proof, it feels right at the beginning, but after awhile it takes more energy to keep it alive and keep the doubts away, involving endless talks, debates and now lately also in internet foras.

...

When spirituality is an 'intellectual spielerei' then of course you need constant affirmation by endless talks, debates, Forum discussions and gathering information on the subject.

But when it is a living thing that you are experiencing in your daily life there is no need for any of the above.  And when talking or discussing about it with others, it is just to exchange ideas and providing your point of view when you think it can be of help. 

Engaging in discussions on your belief system to 'keep the doubts away' is futile. When doing so, it shows that you have not internalized the belief system you claim to hold.  Goethe's quote (thanks MauGR1 for sharing it) is fully applicable here > One can only hear, what one understands.

Doubt is useful when you are seeking, but there is no doubt anymore once you have found the truth in yourself and are living your belief system.

9 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

but there is no doubt anymore once you have found the truth in yourself and are living your belief system.

Personally I would have put " what I consider as the truth " instead of " the truth ".

7 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

When spirituality is an 'intellectual spielerei' then of course you need constant affirmation by endless talks, debates, Forum discussions and gathering information on the subject.

But when it is a living thing that you are experiencing in your daily life there is no need for any of the above.  And when talking or discussing about it with others, it is just to exchange ideas and providing your point of view when you think it can be of help. 

Engaging in discussions on your belief system to 'keep the doubts away' is futile. When doing so, it shows that you have not internalized the belief system you claim to hold.  Goethe's quote (thanks MauGR1 for sharing it) is fully applicable here > One can only hear, what one understands.

Doubt is useful when you are seeking, but there is no doubt anymore once you have found the truth in yourself and are living your belief system.

I can agree fully on that point, since I feel very much I have come to rest with my conscious as I have experienced it. And it is so much less complicated when you first realize how it works for yourselves, and how it release energy, passion about life, and also the doubt disappears. Thank you 

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

When spirituality is an 'intellectual spielerei' then of course you need constant affirmation by endless talks, debates, Forum discussions and gathering information on the subject.

But when it is a living thing that you are experiencing in your daily life there is no need for any of the above.  And when talking or discussing about it with others, it is just to exchange ideas and providing your point of view when you think it can be of help. 

Engaging in discussions on your belief system to 'keep the doubts away' is futile. When doing so, it shows that you have not internalized the belief system you claim to hold.  Goethe's quote (thanks MauGR1 for sharing it) is fully applicable here > One can only hear, what one understands.

Doubt is useful when you are seeking, but there is no doubt anymore once you have found the truth in yourself and are living your belief system.

Again, beautifully worded, Peter!

The high one experiences arguing a point is just food for the ego. That's why arguments arise where no one wants to (or can) back down, because the goal is not clarity and knowledge, but winning.
The true high, the one that feeds the soul, comes from direct experience, be it watching a sunset in silence, connecting with nature and animals, the unconditional love one feels for friends and family, expressing yourself through art etc... It's like a magnet and we're all attracted to it, whether we are aware of it or not.

But there also comes a point where one asks the questions..."Is my happiness dependent on those external, impermanent factors?". "Where can I find a source of happiness and bliss that is independent, ever-giving and ever-lasting?". "What can I do to realize this happiness in my life?"

6 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Goethe's quote (thanks MauGR1 for sharing it) is fully applicable here > One can only hear, what one understands.

 

Sorry, but this is a very broad and imprecise statement. (No disrespect intended).

 

I'll rephrase it for the sake of clarification. "One can only hear what the brain and auditory system interprets as a sound. Whether one understands the nature or source of that sound is another issue."

 

Have you never experienced a strange sound and wondered 'What the heck is that?' ????

32 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry, but this is a very broad and imprecise statement. (No disrespect intended).

 

I'll rephrase it for the sake of clarification. "One can only hear what the brain and auditory system interprets as a sound. Whether one understands the nature or source of that sound is another issue."

 

Have you never experienced a strange sound and wondered 'What the heck is that?' ????

7 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Goethe's quote (thanks MauGR1 for sharing it) is fully applicable here > One can only hear, what one understands.

 

= = = = =

 

Wow, labelling a quote from Goethe as an 'imprecise statement'!

I suspect that you are you taking 'hearing' literally?  And yes, with ear-props there is indeed nothing to be understood from what one hears. 

But that's not what this is about.

Goethe is obviously referring to the information processing part of what was 'heard' and without the necessary mental capacity to understand an abstract thought (whether it is spoken or read) it would be same as if the recipient never heard (or read) it.

If you talk about a law of physics to a 7 year old he will 'hear' what you say, but will of course not 'understand' what it actually means and how it relates to all the rest he already knows.  However, if that 7-year old grows up and learns about mathematics and physics in college and university, that law of physics you talk about can open a totally new mental world for him once he has the 'fertile ground' on which that idea can take root.

Yes, one can only hear, what one understands.

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry, but this is a very broad and imprecise statement. (No disrespect intended).

 

I'll rephrase it for the sake of clarification. "One can only hear what the brain and auditory system interprets as a sound. Whether one understands the nature or source of that sound is another issue."

 

Have you never experienced a strange sound and wondered 'What the heck is that?' ????

Incidentally, this post is a great example for Goethe's quote. I assume you read the quote and interpreted it on your level of understanding (sound), while its deeper meaning (the understanding of knowledge) was not registered. 
I think it's the same problem with those who take the bible literally, or those who look at Ramana Maharshi and see only a man.

wow boys 638 pages ,good going ,keep it up .

638 pages of quotes and speculation.

Wonders will never cease.

 

But what do you really think?

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Incidentally, this post is a great example for Goethe's quote. I assume you read the quote and interpreted it on your level of understanding (sound), while its deeper meaning (the understanding of knowledge) was not registered. 
I think it's the same problem with those who take the bible literally, or those who look at Ramana Maharshi and see only a man.

IMO none of this is lost on @VincentRJ. It all "registers" with me and surely with him...but he's taking it further. He's being far more accurate and precise...not just simply painting with an extremely broad stroke. 

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

IMO none of this is lost on @VincentRJ. It all "registers" with me and surely with him...but he's taking it further. He's being far more accurate and precise...not just simply painting with an extremely broad stroke. 

Sure thing 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

or those who look at Ramana Maharshi and see only a man.

I just looked and saw "only a man". Same with the character commonly referred to as Jesus. Human males, nothing more. At least there is reliable evidence that your boy actually existed. 

2 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

I just looked and saw "only a man". Same with the character commonly referred to as Jesus. Human males, nothing more. At least there is reliable evidence that your boy actually existed. 

...quod erat demonstrandum...
I rest my case. ???? 

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Incidentally, this post is a great example for Goethe's quote. I assume you read the quote and interpreted it on your level of understanding

That's a very obvious and irrefutable assumption. Everyone, and every creature, without exception, can do no more than interpret something on their own level of understanding, whatever their IQ level. That even applies to Albert Einstein. ????

 

while its deeper meaning (the understanding of knowledge) was not registered.

 

Of course it was registered. Did you not understand my comment: "Whether one understands the nature or source of that sound is another issue."

 

In other words, one can be a complete nitwit, yet still hear the same sound waves that an academic with a PhD hears, but one's over all understanding and appreciation of those sound waves, if one is a nitwit, will very likely differ. 
 

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

That's a very obvious and irrefutable assumption. Everyone, and every creature, without exception, can do no more than interpret something on their own level of understanding, whatever their IQ level. That even applies to Albert Einstein. ????

 

 

 

 

Of course it was registered. Did you not understand my comment: "Whether one understands the nature or source of that sound is another issue."

 

In other words, one can be a complete nitwit, yet still hear the same sound waves that an academic with a PhD hears, but one's over all understanding and appreciation of those sound waves, if one is a nitwit, will very likely differ. 
 

Whether you got the meaning of the quote or not, has nothing to do with intelligence, being a PhD or a nitwit. 

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

...quod erat demonstrandum...
I rest my case. ???? 

You made no case...just a baseless claim that a man was more than a man. 

Just now, Skeptic7 said:

You made no case...just a baseless claim that a man was more than a man. 

You probably didn't find the case because it flew over your head, again. 
Please go back to read Goethe's quote.