Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianFantana  Incorrect. In disproving something we do not prove it untrue, we only show the hypothesis as invalid or the truth is not yet attained. |
You believe you prove the hypothesis untrue. Put it this way, you can't disprove something unless you think you absolutely know something else.
Quote:
|
Causality does not exist? I beg to differ. Did these words not appear on this forum as a direct effect of my typing them? I caused them to be here.
|
They do indeed APPEAR to be there. I am not saying that causality cannot be experienced. I am saying that causality does not exist. You are merely experiencing an illusion of causality.
Consider a cartoon. A brick is thrown through a window. The window breaks. Did the window break beCAUSE the brick went through it? No, it is merely a series of images (which appear and disappear to create an illusion of movement). I APPEARS that the brick broke the window. REALLY, the images are just drawn. The artist could just as easily make the window not break as the brick went through it. Witnesses to this event would have called it a miracle.
Quote:
|
My peer-reviewed journals? What? When did I claim them?
|
You did not. It was a reference to another comment in this thread. "Your" was collective.
Quote:
|
And at the "quantum level", we are only yet fit to deal with electron clouds, as the movement of individual electrons is still not fully understood.
|
Movement in generally is not fully understood in QM theory, but experiments have indicated that particles appear and reappear. This in fact is the case (which I know through other perceptive means.)
Quote:
|
They likely do not "disappear" and "reappear" but rather move faster than our capabilites can process.
|
You and others will in fact discover they do not move at all, they do appear and reappear. Mark my words.
Quote:
|
Where did this come from anyway?
|
See the cartoon analogy above.
Quote:
|
As I stated before, causality clearly exists
|
Causality is experienced. That doesn't mean it exists.
Quote:
|
and to deny it is utterly ridiculous
|
Ridicule is your substantiation?
Quote:
|
Do something for me, press the power button on your monitor and see if it turns off. Now, what caused that? Was it your finger pushing the button, or the illusion of your finger? If your finger is an illusion, than you are not a material being, and if this is the case, how did you manage to invade the internet?
|
The illusion operates in "normal" ways, until it does not. It all depends on perspective. Perspective creates perception (experience). For others, the illusion operates in ways that defy causality. I realize this is something which conventional science rejects, but it does so through ignoring any evidence which it cannot explain, which is not true science.
Quote:
|
Your arguments are not based on anything but abstract thought, and as a result do not hold water (real water that is, not imaginary water, of which I'm sure they hold plenty).
|
I am not arguing. I am explaining.
Quote:
|
To debate in circles like this is inane and juvenile, as in the end, if I just claim "you'll never understand" or "you have not experienced it so how could you know?"
|
I am not debating, and I agree it would be meaningless to debate.
Quote:
|
Conscience is one of those funny things that we can't put in a box, as it is so dynamic. We can, however, find it in a skull.
|
I assume you mean consciousness. Consciousness is not located just in the skull. Your consciousness does not end at the physical boundaries of your body, but extends out into the universe infinitely. There is no place where you consciousness ends and another begins. It is all one consciousness. There are merely places where it assumes identity (ego), giving the illusion of separation.
Quote:
|
No, I ignored that because it's insipid. I know when my car's going to break down because it starts sputtering smoke from under the hood. It did not communicate that to me, failing engine parts did. If the car told me "Brian, I'm going to break down", that would be one thing.
|
I did not say you communicated with your car. I said many people do, that it is a common experience. You have quite a narrow filter through which you create your reality. It is very limited. (That is not a bad thing or a put-down, merely a relative observation.)
You would do well to think and talk less, and listen more. Not just to people, but to life itself. As you grow older and activity slows down, you will do so. Then you will understand more of what we are discussing. Until then, you are like a teenager - you know it all.
Quote:
|
The truth does not need anything, I agree. Perhaps I should have phrased it, "we just need to (or have not yet) discovered it. Semantics.
|
Not just semantics. You were communicating that the universe needed something - that apartment building included. So obviously you do see a conscious universe. Your only mistake was your belief that it needed your understanding. It does not. But it welcomes it.
Also, life is not a process of discovery. It is a process of creation.
Quote:
|
This would be a much easier debate in person, because a simple slap or pinch would answer the question of whose reality is real. You would instantly know how real my reality is.
|
If you believe that, then you have a poor perception of how varied experience and perceptions of reality are, even with physical contact.
Quote:
|
It's funny, but I'm reminded now of the potentiality/actuality debates between Aristotle and his students. Aristotle said potentiality is actuality not yet actualized, and I agree with this. If any of your claims are true, they will be actualized; but until they are, they are simply potential, and therefore, there is no proof.
|
That is correct, and is what I have been saying - there is no proof. Until you actualize, all of this is merely conjecture to you. As you expand your awareness, you will see why I am saying what I am saying. For now, you are merely holding it as potential (if that).