It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by xelamental
reply to post by jimmyx
Please enlighten me.
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by xelamental
reply to post by jimmyx
Please enlighten me.
sorry, above my pay-grade, i can only give you what i know based on the experience that i have.
[edit on 27-9-2009 by jimmyx]
Originally posted by grover
Rational thinking!!! Here on ATS??? Say it ain't so.
Originally posted by xelamental
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by xelamental
reply to post by jimmyx
Please enlighten me.
sorry, above my pay-grade, i can only give you what i know based on the experience that i have.
[edit on 27-9-2009 by jimmyx]
I was meaning about #2. How can we adjust to make it any more reliable, apart from making sure that the brain isn't left up to itself to interpret. Every input from our senses is processed, filtered, and in sometimes overwritten (especially in visual processing).
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by xelamental
Originally posted by jimmyx
Originally posted by xelamental
reply to post by jimmyx
Please enlighten me.
sorry, above my pay-grade, i can only give you what i know based on the experience that i have.
[edit on 27-9-2009 by jimmyx]
I was meaning about #2. How can we adjust to make it any more reliable, apart from making sure that the brain isn't left up to itself to interpret. Every input from our senses is processed, filtered, and in sometimes overwritten (especially in visual processing).
i agree...the brain makes constant changes in interpretation, as data is added and processed. the idea of thinking "outside the box" is well-worn, and by its very nature highly speculative. humans are in constant evolution as more data is collected, and more importantly understood. but, i think your question contains the answer, we have to let our brain interpret what data comes into it, but be flexible, and humble enough to evaluate any changes. this ( the brain) is simply all we have to work with at the moment.
[edit on 27-9-2009 by jimmyx]
Originally posted by xelamental
Originally posted by grover
Rational thinking!!! Here on ATS??? Say it ain't so.
I say we start the galactic federation of logic.
Originally posted by grover
Actually the reason why the brain cannot be trusted to be objective or rational is not the subconscious per se but how we process information...
We filter all that we experience through the lens of our expectations...for example take religious faith:
• You are a non believer
• You become interested in a religion or faith
• The more you become convinced that the faith is true the more you see evidences of its truth and the process continues until you become convinced and a true believer.
NOW: in Reverse
• You are a believer
• Something happens to cause you to question your faith
• The more your faith is called into question the more you see evidence that your faith was misplaced and the process continues until you become a non believer.
Of course this is a simplification but I am sure you get the idea.
Originally posted by jimmyx
the brain can be trusted, for example: to "see" stairs, and then decide to lift our legs one at a time to climb them, rather than tripping and falling down. the brain, through research and testing in our early years as a child, came to that conclusion, and for that particular brain, it is now a "known"
[edit on 27-9-2009 by jimmyx]
Originally posted by xelamental
I am a long time lurker on ATS.
Lately there seems to be an upsurge in those thinking that skeptical thinking is wrong. And a lot of poor logic being used, so I thought I might stop in and confront some of these arguments.
1. Great thinkers open their minds. I can open my mind to harry potter, but that doesn't make it any less real. Wishing, praying won't make it any more real as well. How do we differentiate between real and unreal? Science & skepticism. Claims require proof. Proof must be repeatable under controlled conditions. What's so hard about this concept?
2. You can't trust your brain. Our brain is easily fooled - as an amateur mentalist I know this for a fact. Many people believe I am psychic after completing my act. Does it make me psychic? I can make people honestly believe that they had seen god through hypnosis. Does it mean they have? If I can do this, could you do this to yourself? Could drugs or other physiological states? The answer to all this is yes. My point is that you can't trust your primitive senses & perception of reality to actually be reliable. This means that anecdote, personal sightings and magical experiences cannot be differentiated from storytelling. This is unfortunate. Perhaps when we use technology to augment our senses we will be able to use it to fix this issue.
3. An unidentified flying object is not proof of e.t's visiting. It's like saying an unidentified food MUST be a plant from another planet. The key word people seem to miss is UNIDENTIFIED!
4. We base our understanding of the universe on our current level of knowledge. We don't base it on what we WANT our knowledge to be. For example, many people rubbish those that say the speed of light is a physical limit of the universe. They quote things like wormholes (hypothetical objects resulting from ONE possible version of quantum mechanics) to make themselves sound informed. But really, they just WANT this to not be true. The fact is, we must limit ourselves to what we KNOW to be fact at the current stage. Otherwise we may as well just make up stuff. So, until we can prove otherwise, any faster than light travel is no better than the flying spaghetti monster. It doesn't matter how much you want to believe, we have NO proof.
5. If we assume that our current knowledge is correct, and for all we know it is, then ET's aren't likely to be visiting us. The trip is too long.
Thanks, rant over!
Originally posted by jimmyx
"""Until people can realize that nothing is universally true, and therefore all belief is unfounded then true understanding can never be achieved by them - they will be perpetually ignorant. Whether your belief is religious, or that 911 was a conspiracy, or that it wasnt - or ET's are real and visiting or they are not - it doesnt matter which side of an argument you are on - if you believe it - then you are always wrong. """"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my response:
your first sentence is a direct contridiction of itself.
1..."nothing is universally true"---you offer no proof.
2..."true understanding can never be achieved---"never" is a long time
it appears as if you do understand something, but everyone else is ignorant, because they fail to understand that nothing is true. but somehow you believe what you say to be true.
therefore, if anyone believes anything on any side of an arguement, they are always wrong...hhhmmm