Why must you insist reality is illusion?

reply to post by sirnex


Lol, you seriously got it twisted. Lazy, begging friend? You are so arrogant that you think I need you to find answers for me.

Wrong!

I just need you to explain why I'm wrong so that it will become obvious you don't have a clue.

I'm not your friend either.

The further we see into matter, the less we see.

Nothing is interacting with nothing.

You take away the nothings and all you have left is interaction.

Interaction is the energy fueling a duality out of the oneness.

Interaction is consciousness.

Some of us have seen worlds that make what you call reality as flat and dull as a newspaper cartoon.

We are on a bad mono AM band. We are just finding out about the borders, and crossing them. There is an infinitely bigger world. It's beyond even the most gifted creatives best ideas. Beyond duality or description.

Everyone sees it eventually. Life is painfully short.

ZG

The Terrible Truth

Okay: so far we've had the solipsists, the What The Bleepers who think quantum mechanics works on the scale of feet and inches, the mystagogues who think it's all 'spiritual' 'vibrations', the ones pushing Ancient Eastern Wisdom and the ones who think we live in the Matrix. The Gnostics, MK Ultraists and Truman Show believers haven't rolled in yet, but I'm betting it's only a matter of time before we have a full house.

But why wait for them?

Here is the news.

This is reality, friend, with all its warts and lumps and wickedness and pain and excrement and blood and death. That's the truth. Far from being our oyster, the way we thought it was before you and I were potty-trained, the world doesn't give a toss about us. It will never give us exactly what we want.

You can't handle this terrible truth, so you screw your eyes tight shut and tell yourself fairytales. As for me,

And yet, in faith, I think her love more rare
Than any she belied with false compare.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Astyanax]

When you say reality do you mean: 1. The natural reality, such as the earth, the seas, the sky and the heavens. or 2. Our created reality, such as your name and identity, your ethnicity, race and nationality?

If the you mean the former, then it is real enough. The latter however, the reality created by men, is illusion, if for no other reason, because it will die eventually and another reality will replace it.

It seems, on this thread, the two have not been separated out. As if men have the intellectual capacity to create worlds and life from nothing, as God has done. The same lie that's been told since the beginning of history.

The greatest illusion ever produced by man was making the Sun rise in the West. History records that it has happened at least twice. A Greek while traveling in Egypt heard the story. But, the Sun didn't really rise in the West as it appeared. The minds of men were turned inside out.

Don't underestimate the power of lies, they can dramatically alter reality and can be used to create whole different worlds, which are in fact illusions and ultimately, when the lie is known to be a lie, the illusion is destroyed.

Don't believe it. Look out into your world, our world, and see for yourself.

From my understanding of the world, we are but pure energy (I'll call it light for now, although, I'm guessing this ain't right), resonating in a plenum. This energy, gives the impression of 'physicality' through vibration, only an insanely small portion of this resonance spectrum too.

You may think your touching your mouse or your keyboard, but IMO, it is actually charged particles repelling each other, at no point do you touch the surface, would you consider touch to determine your reality?

Sight, to look at something, you have affected what it is, it exists in all forms until you look at it, a wave of possibilities, until focused, then it becomes the particl. Could we influence this physical world with our mind? Well, IMO, sort of, we don't alter the physical, as it isn't essentially physical, it is energy expressing itself, infinitely, every possibility, yet when we look at it, our mind, has an assumption as to what it is, be it a lamp in the corner of your room, or your computer on the desk. Ever think you saw something out the corner of your eye, but when you look it's gone? We can only percieve a small portion of light, yet we know it is a form of energy, that makes everything we know to be real and tangible.

I would go into the others, but I feel these are the 2 that many people base their reality on. I wouldn't say that we 'create an illusion' but more like create our reality, as it is real, only not the full picture, but merely an expression of an infinite list of possibile expressions.

For instance, I would love to see the world, from, not only someone else's perspective, but also their perception, I believe it would be totally different to my own, or anyone's. Do we hear sounds the same? taste the same tastes? see the same colours? I think not.

I will add this, as it helped me understand this concept:

Imagine the light emanating from a lightbulb, the brightest point of that light, is were the filament is, this would be our 'soul' or connection to everything else, this is the part that is anchored in our physical body. The body itself, is the immediate glow, around the filament, intense light that we percieve as our physical body, and presumably, everything else we can see would fall within this area of the spectrum (IR). The outer glow, that is more diffuse, would be considered the aura, still part of our 'conscioussness' yet not physically rooted into out brains. This falls into the part of the spectrum of light we can't percieve, as was the soul, I cannot see it, but to me, that doesn't mean its not there.

This is how I made sense of it and it seems to be right for me at the moment, but I am sure it wil change, as I continue to learn.

EMM

Btw.. I have a thread related to this subject here: It's based on the observations of physicist, Peter Russell.

Reality: The Grand Illusion

reply to post by enigmania


You know what, thanks to your hypocritical arrogance, I'm not even going to explain it to you. I had half a day today, so this afternoon I was going to post something.

Forget it now. In this post you first don't need me, and then you do. No, you didn't win the argument, far from it. You've already admitted to laziness and you've been constantly badgering and begging for an immediate explanation despite being told I don't have the time to give an elaborate immediate answer.

Look, your views are wrong. It's not ME PERSONALLY saying you are wrong, it's the damn scientists themselves. Like I said, neither one of us came up with our conclusions on our own, they were concluded by the researcher's studying this stuff. Your only looking for sources that confirm this one belief you have, I look at all angles. And I'm sorry, but when the scientists interviewed for what the bleep do we know hop on you tube to bash the hell out of that movie for grossly misrepresenting them and what they were saying and editing out important explanations and giving those explanations, that says a lot about the validity of those claims big guy.

You want to live in your own fantasy world because it's nice and cozy, that's fine. Your free to do so, but I'm also free to let you know your wrong. You want to be an arrogant little B and whine about not needing and then needing me to explain something to you, then I'm just not going to. I'm sick of hypocritical people and the laziness of them. You certainly lack any real drive yo learn and research all angles of this subject.

Part of the answer is in your own damn links you gave me. IN YOUR OWN LINKS. How god damn funny is that??? The other part of the answer is on you tube given by the scientists THEMSELVES.

Take this however you want, you've already shown lack of initiative and lack of willingness to learn something new. You've already admitted to being lazy about it, so unless you can edit your post's, everyone here see's your laziness and your hypocrisy.

Have a good day lazy begger who doesn't need me to explain and then does.

reply to post by TheBandit795


Yea, and the view is wrong because it INSISTS that consciousness is produced by an outside source, which is not only counter-intuitive but also lacks any evidence that this would be so. It does nothing to explain the whereabouts of an outside source of consciousness or how it become merged within a physical form. The whole thing does nothing but complicate the universe further and explains nothing.

reply to post by sirnex


Lol, how dissapointing and not at all expected.

The 'problem' with what the Bleep is two-fold. It sensationalizes a couple of things and it goes way ahead of the scientific consensus with their claims in the movie. That does not say it is not true in some basic way by the way. An observer has an effect on observed reality. (Double slit experiment and more), the earliest quantum scientists even questioned if the moon exists when nobody is observing it (Link | Google link)

So quantum elements react on observation in some way so when EVERYTHING is made out of the reactionary quantum elements consciousness does have a reaction to it, this does not make it a illusion in the magicians sense (slight of hand, smoke and mirrors etc) it does make it a consiousness-operated reality with a source that is at this time unknown. When every sentient being in the universe dies the universe could stop to exist. Making it a subjective reality that needs consciousness to keep existing.

Quantum is being used by the new age people and they do not have everything right, scientists do not have everything right but i think that the truth is somewhere in the limbo between those two.


[edit on 15-9-2008 by Harman]

reply to post by Harman


No, the problem with that movie is that they misrepresented what the scientists were saying and edited out the thing the scientists meant that negates what the movie was putting forward as truth and scientific. These same scientists can be seen on you tube discussing what they meant and how ticked they are about being misrepresented. The movie is nothing more than sensationalized garbage with the sole intent on SELLING and not on educating.

reply to post by Harman


And ffs, the observer effect IS NOT THE CONSCIOUS OBSERVATION OF SOMETHING BEING THE CAUSE OF IT CHANGING!

You can't make things happen with your mind, or by thinking about them. This is not what science says about the observer effect. Not even god damn quantum mechanics says that for crying out loud.

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Harman

 

No, the problem with that movie is that they misrepresented what the scientists were saying and edited out the thing the scientists meant that negates what the movie was putting forward as truth and scientific. These same scientists can be seen on you tube discussing what they meant and how ticked they are about being misrepresented. The movie is nothing more than sensationalized garbage with the sole intent on SELLING and not on educating.

That is your take on it, not mine. What the bleep is a nice piece to make you think but a whole lot of things cannot be proven scientifically, but even time itself cannot be proven outside of the casuality it produces. That scientists get pissed on the movie is their problem, but i tdoesn't make the whole concept bunk. It just simplifies and assumes a lot of things. Scientists are conservatives in this regard, New age people are Liberals and the truth is a realist.

And do not pop a vain because of this topic, not worth it.

By the way: What the bleep is NOT the only source for the whole 'everything is a illusion' concept. Just like 'The secret' is not the only source for the 'Law of attration' So even iwhen you pounce on 'what the bleep it doesn't make the concept itself any less ( or more) credible.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by Harman]

reply to post by sirnex

You can't make things happen with your mind, or by thinking about them. This is not what science says about the observer effect. Not even god damn quantum mechanics says that for crying out loud.

Well the Double Slit experiment says that we can get a particle to act as a wave and act as a particle again, simply by not observing and observing the process.

So it is exactly what quantum mechanics says.

And what do you mean you can't make things happen with your mind? Would you be able to breath, hear, see, love, hate, experience consciousness at all, without your mind?

Would you and your reality exist without your mind or consciousness?

I think reality is an illusion merely because we don't know what real is. Scientists want it to be a material world. I don't think it's a material world here because the universe didn't just manifest itself and if it did it must have done so in a controlled way.

reply to post by enigmania

Well the Double Slit experiment says that we can get a particle to act as a wave and act as a particle again, simply by not observing and observing the process.

Again, misunderstanding. Look, the observer effect doesn't literally mean a conscious mind doing the observing. In physics you need a detector of sorts which has to interact with the particle that detector is 'observing'. That is what the observer effect is in physics, look it up.

Also, a couple of clicks around in the double slit article itself brings you to the page discussing De Broglie himself and how his model denies the duality of particle/wave. Yet, you showed me a video depicting a very basic explanation for that very thing all the while without you understanding what you were posting.

So it is exactly what quantum mechanics says.

Wrong. Look it up. en.wikipedia.org...(physics)

And what do you mean you can't make things happen with your mind? Would you be able to breath, hear, see, love, hate, experience consciousness at all, without your mind?

This statement is insisting that consciousness needs to be "one thing" that exists outside the brain/body. Not only is this counter-intuitive to what we know about the biology of the human body, how it grows and adapts and the various causes for various disorders, but there is also no evidence of it being "one thing". There is plenty of evidence, in fact plenty of research showing it to be a complex system composed of various system functions within the brain that operates completely through electrochemical processes and without a proper working system causes a wide range of malfunctions.

The things you listed are controlled by various functions in different areas of the brain. Love itself is a purely chemical response, as all emotions are. You have the visual and auditory sensory systems that control sight and hearing, and another separate system that controls breath. It's a really complex organ with a lot of different functions that compose the whole of what you think is "one thing".

Would you and your reality exist without your mind or consciousness?

Reality will continue to exist just fine with or without me, or you, or the six billion inhabitants on this planet. As it has for the last 13.8 billion or so years.

reply to post by sirnex

Again, misunderstanding. Look, the observer effect doesn't literally mean a conscious mind doing the observing.

Jeah I misunderstood what you meant with observer effect, but I understand now.

As a matter of fact, they thought of that to. They used a quantum eraser. It would erase the information after the detector had detected the particle. They found that by doing so they would restore the wave function.

So the physical act of detecting a particle does not interfere with the process.

It's the fact that when the info doesn't reach a conscious mind, the particle acts like a wave, even though it has been detected by a detector.

As you like to say it: look it up.

Also, a couple of clicks around in the double slit article itself brings you to the page discussing De Broglie himself and how his model denies the duality of particle/wave.

I didn't even mention De Broglie.


And if you truly feel that our consciousness is a mere result of our physical body, you and me are worlds apart and we will never reach a level of understanding on matters like this one.

reply to post by enigmania

It's the fact that when the info doesn't reach a conscious mind, the particle acts like a wave, even though it has been detected by a detector.

Look it up indeed. Now where in the article are you referencing the use of consciousness as part of the observation process? en.wikipedia.org...

You claim to now have a better understanding of the observer effect and yet you still insist on misusing it in your argument. Read the whole article and quote directly where it references consciousness.

[edit on 15-9-2008 by sirnex]