Why must you insist reality is illusion?

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Yes, they are. But they are also a cause of electromagnetic wavelength.

I think you mean result, instead of cause. Right? Or do you mean colors cause EM wavelengths?

For a completely colorblind person, colors do not exist, even though the wavelengths are still there. So colors exist apart from the wavelengths, in the brain only.

reply to post by enigmania


I mean cause. Colors are also a cause of electromagnetic wavelength, simultaneously a result.

That is if we're using the observe, potential and collapse analogy.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Yeah. Only about sight.

I wasn't talking about sight (specifically), I was talking about color.

What collapsed the potential of your brain and visual optics into solid matter and the mechanics that they carry out? Their functions and their matter are just as real as anything else.

Maybe my(our) consciousness did. But I'm not really eager to start that discussion all over again, since it has been covered extensively, earlier in the thread.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
reply to post by enigmania

 

I mean cause. Colors are also a cause of electromagnetic wavelength, simultaneously a result.

That is if we're using the observe, potential and collapse analogy.

But now you're mixing up theories, or viewpoints.

I suspected earlier that you didn't interprete the "observer creates solid matter by collapsing wave of potential" theory right.

If you look at it from this theory, matter, EM wavelengths, color, everything, is created by a conscious observer.

So from that standpoint colors are not a cause, nor a result of EM wavelengths.

[edit on 28/9/08 by enigmania]

Originally posted by enigmania
If you look at it from this theory, matter, EM wavelengths, color, everything, is created by a conscious observer.

Can't separate yourself from the equation. You're just as much a part of the universe as anything else. So are your eyes and their bio-mechanics. So it's better to ask yourself how all of this plays into reality instead of attempting to just discard certain aspects of it as illusion, that are in fact very real, very physical and 100% existential. Unless, again, your point is to study the universe devoid of Human presence (which is sort of a contradiction since you're Human, so you'll never come across a T.O.E. that way because you're leaving elements out of the equation).

So from that standpoint colors are not a cause, nor a result of EM wavelengths.

I interpret it right.

For the ease of your understanding, yes the color of perceived light is a result of the vibration (frequency) of electromagnetic wavelengths when perceived through and from the Human anatomy (if not assuming an optically congenital defect [or otherwise]) and the Human anatomy is a result of what?

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


This is getting annoying. I make a point from one perspective, then I have to defend that point from another theory's perspective.


Like I said, the "observer" theory is just a theory.

Our discussion was about color being an illusion, only existant in the brain. At least that's what I said.

You said color really existed.

All of this has nothing to do with the "observer" theory. So don't debate me on one theory, while asking to explain myself from the viewpoint of another theory.

A theory I already said I wasn't going to get into anymore, there's already pages full of that in this thread.

reply to post by enigmania


I didn't just ask you to explain anything from any theory's perspective. I'm simply asking you questions, you don't have to be tied down by any theory or idea and I didn't just say that you had to be. This isn't very difficult to do. I'm not having any trouble, why are you? Why complain, why not just explain and converse?

You're fighting yourself. I did not say that you had to explain anything from any particular perspective.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


I don't know if you've read the whole thread, but I was glad we went past that "observer" theory, cause if been discussing it into oblivion with Sirnex. I'm not going to do it all over with you again.

Now I was discussing the "color" issue with you, and you want start discussing the "observer" theory with me.

I'm sorry, I'm not going down that road again. Everything has been already been said about that, from all different angles.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

You're fighting yourself. I did not say that you had to explain anything from any particular perspective.

No, you just make a post with one central question, based upon two different subjects and theories.

reply to post by enigmania


So what was the conclusion? Honestly, I haven't read all the posts. I did read the first few pages when this thread was initiated. From what I saw when I arrived you began asserting that color was an illusion. It is not.

However, if you are only speaking of the universe devoid of Human interaction, presence and experience, therefore discarding all the physical attributes and anatomy that comes along with the Human body, then I agree that color doesn't exist in that mind set. But, when the Human is introduced to the picture, then color is very real (and so is color blind).

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by enigmania
No, you just make a post with one central question, based upon two different subjects and theories.

And, is there a rule against that? Perhaps I did it on purpose because I want to stimulate imagination and creativity, I want to provoke thought and progression on the subject. If you don't wish to take part in the discussion and you find the questions too challenging and confusing, then I have no problem with leaving you alone, all you have to do is ask me straight up or tell me straight up. Don't have to be mean about it or explain yourself or anything. Just let me know, hey I don't wanna talk about this. I'm fine with that.

Furthermore, I've been respectful of both theory's and your perspective as well. I've noted in almost all of my posts the difference and the comparison and contrast between the two. The one involving the Human and optically chromatic perception, and the one not involving the Human. Have I not?

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

So what was the conclusion?

The conclusion was that if you don't believe in consciousness, existing outside of the body, you will never believe in the "observer" theory.

Also the results of the Double Slit Quantum experiments are bizarre and inexplainable, if you don't believe in consciousness, existing outside the human body/brain.

If you do believe in it, the results are still bizarre, but can be explained.

You see, if you don't believe in a non-physical consciousness, you won't believe the theory, and we will be in an endless argument.

PS, it's not that I don't want to talk to you, I just don't want have to repeat the whole discussion I had earlier.

[edit on 28/9/08 by enigmania]

reply to post by enigmania


Well, then our discussion is over.

I don't put my faith in anything non-physical. I'm a scientist.

Thanks for the discussion while it lasted.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal


Here, see? I knew it would be of no use for us to discuss this.

On the other hand, the experiments I was talking about, do, IMO, prove scientifically that human consciousness, is making a wave collapse into a particle.

Maybe you should review those experiments, and what we said about them, and report your opinion.

reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

I don't put my faith in anything non-physical. I'm a scientist.

I can't believe you said that, I just remembered you started this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is one eternal soul that we all share and that we are all a part of, in other words there is one eternal existence that we are all a part of.

I fully agree with that and I really liked that thread.

What's going on here? Do you have a split personality or what?

reply to post by enigmania


When I said soul, I meant the essence, that which is energy. Energy is eternal in both time and space and in its myriad of forms it is everything that is for all of us and for every thing.

We all share the eternal existence and it is an eternity of physicality.

Thanks for asking. Not everyone understands everything the way it is meant to be explained the first time around especially in this day and age where the world soul no longer means physical, but rather non-physical (and I don't always do the best job explaining things so that you can understand it the way I mean for you to).

But I'm trying and I'm going to continue doing my best.

In physical reality there actually is no absence. There is only immeasurable presence. There is no absence of the physical. Between every two points of reference there is space, that space is full of physical elements.

So, physical reality is eternal. Eternity has no beginning and no end. Absence has no beginning and no end. They are both an immeasurable presence, they are both THE immeasurable presence. This is how the invisibilities and subjective convictions will be decimated. Because there is no "non-physical", there is no "absence". Absence and eternity are the same thing, the physical existence. Send me some u2u's and we'll discuss further if you'd like.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Dang, dont you hate it when you write something then it gets lost before you save it,,say in this box for example lol. Ok heres the thought......
you know the slit experiment as to if its a wave or a particle? And where the very act of watching it changed its outcome. So from that experiment you could say mind effects matter, at least at some tiny tiny scale anyway right? Now lets consider reality and say even technology. Technology is made of tiny components,,which are governed by even smaller things we call electrons. From the experiment above it could be said mind can effect electrons. Maybe you cant move or levitate a chair with your mind. But you might could effect some electrons in that chair with your mind. And perhaps even effect some atoms. So then if you could do that then why cant you move or levitate a chair with your mind or thoughts? Here could be the answer. Lets say what if the overall belief systems of people effect reality. In other words if one person can say move some electrons with their mind or belief. and what if belief could be thought of like a battery. One battery might not do alot,,but many added together can right?
So the overall belief system of mankind believing in atoms,,believing in technology adds to alot of "battery-belief" power added together right. And so that makes technology a reality in itself. But still could a single person move a chair with the mere little power of the mind? Well lets get back to technology and schematics. A schematic is an exact example of where and what the electrons will or are doing right? If you say chair move,,and nothing happens but say a few electrons may have moved in the chair, by the mere will power of your mind then not alot of direction is going on here right? One electron may have went left,,another right, but no road was layed out mentally for these electrons to follow since you just wanted to move the chair with the power of your mind. But if you had a more detailed dirction,,a better layed road so to speak,,a real plan for these little electrons to follow then maybe you might get somewhere. Technology is the modern day magic,,but most dont think of it as magic anymore,,even tho it still really is. Something to think about!