Reality: Fact or Fiction


AnnaG
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

You are talking about consensual reality. Those things happen because it is the generally accepted outcome of such an encounter. And there may be someone out there who will see you as short, fat and bald someday. Some people's perception can be twisted and some can bend the rules of physical reality. It is just programming after all.

Well, along with this "censensual reality" comes the realities that follow: realities like molecular density, volume, inertia, potential energy, kinetic energy, electrochemical activity, etc. (it's a huge list) that kinda ties the one lone "consensual reality" to a universe full of realities.
For instance, I have fallen in love a few times and it's really cool to have that kind of reality. But I also know just what that reality consists of and it is nothing mystical even though it may seem miraculous to some.

Oxytocin, chemical addiction and the science of love

Everything else is a result of how our brains interpret what we experience, but that does not make any event we perceive unreal.
I can see that a few people would get to thinking too much and get lost in thoughts long enough to think they really don't exist and stuff, though.

BTW, I am tall for a female, athletically slim, have a full head of hair, and I was born in northern Manitoba.
 
MHz
#32
How about a VR game where you have a rock dropped on you toe as part of the reality feature. In a VR Boxing match there is a boxing glove attached to a modified jack-hammer that move about at random behind a curtain and all you can see is some pixels on some shutter glasses and suddenly from out of the 'blue' you get the Mike Tyson KO punch that is based on collected data from Mike doing a few sample punches that establish speed and force etc. $5/ pop and nobody takes seconds.
 
AnnaG
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Muffy?

Nope
 
Cliffy
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post


BTW, I am tall for a female, athletically slim, have a full head of hair, and I was born in northern Manitoba.

I know. I have seen your pics. I'm short, fat and balding. My reality differs from yours.
 
MHz
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

BTW, I am tall for a female, athletically slim, have a full head of hair, and I was born in northern Manitoba.

What does the northern Manitoba part have to do with physical attractiveness?
 
AnnaG
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

I know. I have seen your pics. I'm short, fat and balding. My reality differs from yours.

Why would it? If we meet and I see you as short, fat, and balding, how is that a different reality? lol
 
Cliffy
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Why would it? If we meet and I see you as short, fat, and balding, how is that a different reality? lol

Self image has everything to do with it.
 
AnnaG
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

How about a VR game where you have a rock dropped on you toe as part of the reality feature. In a VR Boxing match there is a boxing glove attached to a modified jack-hammer that move about at random behind a curtain and all you can see is some pixels on some shutter glasses and suddenly from out of the 'blue' you get the Mike Tyson KO punch that is based on collected data from Mike doing a few sample punches that establish speed and force etc. $5/ pop and nobody takes seconds.

wow Looks like you caught a ride on a river in babble-on.
 
AnnaG
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

What does the northern Manitoba part have to do with physical attractiveness?

Nothing, but your question has nothing to do with either nor has it anything to do with why I said I was from northern Manitoba.
 
MHz
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Why would it? If we meet and I see you as short, fat, and balding, how is that a different reality? lol

Set up a challenge to see who can get the most phone numbers from strangers in a mall on a Wednesday morning and again on Friday evening. For the old short bald guys the mall is empty every day until they hit the check-out line then all the really, really old ladies get in front to count out those endless pennies. lol
 
AnnaG
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Self image has everything to do with it.

It's still not a relative reality. lol
 
MHz
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

wow Looks like you caught a ride on a river in babble-on.

lol, river??, it's a boxing sim.
I could probably get past the toe stub thing, why let it ruin the rest of the day. lol a punch that equals Mike's is going to ruin th rest of the week.
 
DaSleeper
#43
This thread reads like a chapter of the 1999 The Matrix
 
AnnaG
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

lol, river??, it's a boxing sim.
I could probably get past the toe stub thing, why let it ruin the rest of the day. lol a punch that equals Mike's is going to ruin th rest of the week.

It was a trope. Basically, what I said was that I didn't understand what you were babbling about.
Last edited by AnnaG; May 11th, 2010 at 09:12 PM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

they don't I guess.

Amazing how you can always find some fringe character who knows no more than you do to support your claims.
 
AnnaG
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

This thread reads like a chapter of the 1999 The Matrix

Yeah.
I'm just saying that reality is simply reality, but what makes the difference between people is how they perceive reality.
 
DaSleeper
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

Yeah.
I'm just saying that reality is simply reality, but what makes the difference between people is how they perceive reality.

OK As long as I know it's me I'm shaving in the morning when I look in the mirror....
 
darkbeaver
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Amazing how you can always find some fringe character who knows no more than you do to support your claims.


Thomas Smid (M.Sc. Physics, Ph.D. Astronomy) You are desperate indeed to characterize that man as the fringe, I would guess he has a very decent mind and never makes unsupportable claims, something you will never tire of it seems. The entire universe is electric, you should accept that, it would be helpful on your spiritual quest.

You are simply wrong again, that isn't amazing at all, it is good basic science complete with the math and the experimental confirmation and the observation and the predictive powers so lacking in relativity that you are unable to understand. You are simply lost when it comes to physics Dexter. It's not hard to find someone who knows more than I do about any subject. It is very rare that I find someone like you who knows less.

The article in Physics Letters A was written by Tom Van Flandern, a research associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland. He also publishes Meta Research Bulletin, which supports "promising but unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy." In the 1990's, he worked as a special consultant to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of satellites whose atomic clocks allow ground observers to determine their position to within about a foot. Van Flandern reports that an intriguing controversy arose before GPS was even launched. Special relativity gave Einsteinians reason to doubt whether it would work at all. In fact, it works fine. (But more on that later.)file:///E:/teusdaymay11th/Tom%20Van%...20Articles.htm
Last edited by darkbeaver; May 11th, 2010 at 09:41 PM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Thomas Smid (M.Sc. Physics, Ph.D. Astronomy)

Yeah? And who is he? I was unable to find any real information about him and what he thinks except on his own web site. He appears not to be employed anywhere, to have no professional affiliations, I couldn't find out anything about him, and if he were really a reputable physicist, it should have been easy.
 
darkbeaver
#50
Yeah, and who are you to you too?
It's those professional affiliations that have retarded astrophysics these last hundred years Dexter, it's why you are so backward and why the rest of us, with an interest, have had to struggle through all the roadblocks set up by those affiliations of power and position for some better understanding of cosmology and physics. Your selection criteria is flawed, you want to use professional reputation instead of the science you claim to champion. The professional skeptics web sites won't help you. You have to think for yourself sometimes. The evidence for the electric model of the universe is overwhelmingly favourable, it has no worthy competition.

CV of Thomas Smid

Curriculum Vitae
 
AnnaG
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

OK As long as I know it's me I'm shaving in the morning when I look in the mirror....

And if I looked in your mirror at the right angle, I would probably agree with you. lol
 
AnnaG
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Yeah? And who is he? I was unable to find any real information about him and what he thinks except on his own web site. He appears not to be employed anywhere, to have no professional affiliations, I couldn't find out anything about him, and if he were really a reputable physicist, it should have been easy.

Apparently he is a bit more well-known than you think. I found this:

Please check this website out [Archive] - Physics Forums

So it seems there are quite a few people who don't think he's quite kosher.
 
Dexter Sinister
#53
Yes, but he's not known as a reputable physicist, as you saw.

I found half a dozen sites like that fairly quickly, but nothing to indicate he has any credibility. But the Beave thinks the scientific enterprise is irremediably corrupt and only the cranks have it right, so those are the people he cites.
 
AnnaG
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Yes, but he's not known as a reputable physicist, as you saw.

Yup.

Quote:

I found half a dozen sites like that fairly quickly, but nothing to indicate he has any credibility. But the Beave thinks the scientific enterprise is irremediably corrupt and only the cranks have it right, so those are the people he cites.

lol I noticed that, too.
 
darkbeaver
#55
"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it"-Albert Einstein.
 
Cliffy
#56
Reality could very well be a figment of our imagination.

Scientists have found that the results of experiments that were done by someone in the past do not always hold true in the present. When conducted by someone new, even under the same conditions, the results could be radically different. Einstein discovered that reality is influenced by the beliefs and mindset of the observer.
After repeating experiments dozens of times in different locations on the planet and receiving the same results, scientists would express their results as universal laws. Today, however, our views of reality are changing. Our ever expanding database of information is rendering those laws, long held to be true, extinct. Even if the experiments are repeated in exactly the same way the results will differ.
The discovery that reality is relative to the beholder is a major breakthrough in how we perceive life. It opens a door to an infinite number of possibilities that has been unavailable to past generations and may be the gateway to the next millennium - “to boldly go where no one has gone before”!
The problem that faced European colonizers all over the world was they could not accept there could be views of reality that differed from their own. They came in contact with aboriginal peoples who’s beliefs about reality were so foreign to them they felt obliged to purge them of their “evil”. The colonists had to convert them to their way of thinking or destroy them for to allow another reality to co-exist with theirs would put their own existence into question. Since they possessed greater powers of persuasion, in the form of artillery, they were able to suppress these “primitive” beliefs.
Of course their success was limited - guns cannot kill spirit. What is real to a ‘natural’ person is not recognizable to a ‘civilized’ suburbanite living in the artificial environment of the industrial state. For people living in harmony with their environment the spirit indwelling in all things, animate or inanimate, is as real as the object. To civilized man the object is all. Spirits are external forces acting upon life not an integral part of it.
Civilized man sees a tree as just a wooden trunk with branches, roots and leaves - an object to be exploited for profit. Natural people see the life force pulsing through it, its spiritual essence, and its integral connection to their own lives and all that surrounds it. Different beliefs alter the perception of what a tree is as well as all other aspects of reality.
If there are ten witnesses at an event they will give ten different accounts of it. Almost all details will vary from colour, sex, size and order according to each person’s way of seeing. A classic example is the four Gospels of the Bible. Each story is quite different according to what was important and of interest to the author.
When you tell a story to someone you can expect that, by the time it gets back to you, it will be so altered as to be barely recognizable. This is because our experience of life colours our perception. Our beliefs, what is important, interesting and our mood all affect which details we notice and remembered.
Perception varies from person to person and culture to culture. Life may be a bed of roses to one or violence and horror to another. It may be purely material or pure energy (spirit), rigid or flexible, microscopic or macrocosmic. The variables are as endless as the human imagination.

Excerpt from The Freedom of Responsibility
 
karrie
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Reality could very well be a figment of our imagination.

Scientists have found that the results of experiments that were done by someone in the past do not always hold true in the present. When conducted by someone new, even under the same conditions, the results could be radically different. Einstein discovered that reality is influenced by the beliefs and mindset of the observer.
After repeating experiments dozens of times in different locations on the planet and receiving the same results, scientists would express their results as universal laws. Today, however, our views of reality are changing. Our ever expanding database of information is rendering those laws, long held to be true, extinct. Even if the experiments are repeated in exactly the same way the results will differ.

Can you give an example of such experiments and the controls that went into them?
 
Cliffy
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Can you give an example of such experiments and the controls that went into them?

Sorry. I wrote that twenty five years ago and I don't have that data anymore. I do know that the mind set of the observer can have an effect on the outcome. I believe Einstein made that observation. As views change so do the results. The only recent info I have come across has been in quantum physics and mechanics. Although Dex poo poos What the Bleep do We Know? the scientists interviewed in that movie are the top in their field. But I can see how some would have difficulty with their conclusions. They question the very basic fabric of our views of reality.
 
Dexter Sinister
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

...What the Bleep do We Know? the scientists interviewed in that movie are the top in their field. .

The interviews were selectively edited to make it appear the scientists support the movie's contentions when they don't, and at least one of them, David Albert, has reacted to it with contempt and scorn. The movie is mostly pseudoscientific BS, completely misrepresents what quantum theory actually says. If you want some real information, try Nick Herbert's book Quantum Reality.
 
Cliffy
#60
One reviewers perspective.

Our brain is a fascinating machine constantly encoding and embedding imprints of memories, inherited memories, and past experiences in us forever altering our perception of life and ourselves. Whether or not it's a promotional film for the RSE, it does in fact offer alternate perspectives into our universe and minds that will scare many whom cling to their own beliefs. Is it so wrong to explore other views of life? Are we forever doomed to be content in our own world without exploring other's views of the world we live in? Regardless of how we view this world, we still live in it together, and promoting RSE or Ramtha didn't truly alter my expectations or viewing experience. We, as humans, have the ability to alter reality itself, yet we're still just insignificant dots, more of a microcosm for the bigger picture. And no, I'm not talking about god. But reality. So many million particles make up our very being, our very reality, it's utterly defeating to just subject ourselves to one thought process when so many possibilities await us.
It's utterly defeating to sit down and not attempt to explore an event or significant occurrence and just pass it off as an act of god. Groucho Marx once said "I, not events, have the power to make me happy or unhappy today. I can choose which it shall be. Yesterday is dead, tomorrow hasn't arrived yet. I have just one day, today, and I'm going to be happy in it." "What the..." examines human responsibility and our ability to discover our surroundings and how we as dominant objects in this world have the chance to alter our reality and our surroundings without the help of an outside mysterious force. While some would view this as a spiritual film, I tended to view it more as an argument for reason and logic. And it's an engrossing look at such a concept.

The point is the exploration of ideas. Reality is not rigid. I discovered this quite by accident while sharing a different culture, the native American spiritual practices, and experienced many events and phenomenon that were outside the acceptable norms of my catholic upbringing. That is when I realized that reality is dependent, to a great extent, on your perspective and belief systems.
Last edited by Cliffy; May 13th, 2010 at 10:18 AM..
 

Similar Threads

1
Robin Hood - fact or fiction?
by Blackleaf | Apr 3rd, 2007
3
Fact vs. sentiment
by MikeyDB | Mar 30th, 2007
15
12
0
The Fen Tiger: fact, fiction or a hoax?
by Blackleaf | Apr 20th, 2006
no new posts