»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Perceptive Reality
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Perceptive Reality |
|
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration 
|
It has long been my contention, (to the great ire of a close friend,) that our "reality" is defined by our perception. By that, I mean that what we percieve as our individual reality, (I also maintain that reality is possesive,) in fact becomes our reality. If I honestly believe that there is a red spot on the white wall next to me, then I maintain that said red spot is "real" to me. Does a tree that falls in the woods with no one around make a sound? Does a tree that falls in the woods, with only I around, make a sound, or is it just my peception that it does? If I percieve it to be such, does it not then follow that it is real to me? And if it is real to me, then can I not call it reality? Go ahead, tear me up. I can handle it!  |
||
| © Copyright 2000 C.G. Ward - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
ARRRRRRRRGHHHHH! No matter how deluded you may be with your red spot on the wall, my dear unstable friend, you cannot suspend the laws of physics -- the darn tree fell, and it DID make a sound -- the air moved, the wave traveled, oblivious to whether or not your ears were there to receive said disturbance!! I do agree that reality on an individual level is measured in perception, but my contention is that there is a physical reality which cannot be altered by perception, at least not by any means that has been proven scientifically. As I said, the tree fell -- whether or not you saw it do a jig and fly away into the lavender sky, it will still trip you when you try to walk where you say it isn't laying. And when it does, I will be there laughing! hehehe --Me  Full fathom five thy father lies, Of his bones are coral made, Those are pearls that were his eyes; Nothing of him that doth fade But doth suffer a sea-change Into something rich and strange... --William Shakespeare, from The Tempest |
||
|
Ryan Member
since 1999-06-10
Posts 297Kansas |
Of course, then again, you all could just be in my mind. I perceive you, therefore, you exist. If I don't perceive something, it doesn't exist. Only I'm real, because I am me. I can't know that anything else is real because I am not anything else. Yeah, yeah, it is a very self-centered philosophy, but it's fun to argue. Ryan I like too many things and get all confused and hung-up running from one falling star to another till i drop. This is the night, what it does to you. I had nothing to offer anybody except my own confusion. —Jack Kerouac |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
And I perceive Ryan perceiving everyone else except for Trevor who perceives me, God and Catherine Zeta Jones and a wookie-suit clad Ogre (like he NEEDS a wookie-suit).  Seriously, I think the only way we can gather information about the world around is is by perception (see, touch, taste, smell and hear) and that it is true that we interpret reality based on how we perceive it, but the notion that reality is as subjective as our perceptions just doesn't fly with me. Our perception of reality, or, rather, our interpretation of that perception, is subjective but I am inclined to believe that reality (including laws of Physics, Kess) is objective. "Does a tree that falls in the woods with no one around make a sound?" If by "sound" you mean "does it create a sensation of hearing" when nobody is around, the answer is no. But if you mean "does it create a potential for the sensation of hearing" the answer is yes. And if you mean "does it disturb air" then the answer is yes. If you test your hypothesis (trees make a sound when the fall) by being present for the felling of 1000 trees then go shopping ten miles away when the 1001st tree is cut down, then return to the site, I think it is reasonable to assert that HAD you been there, you would have experienced a sensation of hearing resulting from the tree's falling. You asked for it, Chris! "Does a tree that falls in the woods, with only I around, make a sound, or is it just my perception that it does? If I percieve it to be such, does it not then follow that it is real to me? And if it is real to me, then can I not call it reality?" Again, perception is an interpretation of reality (the world around us). The tree falling is just as real to everyone else as it is to you (even if everyone else never learns of it falling). Your perception of the sound of the tree falling is unique to you. The atom existed before we perceived it. X-rays, infrared, ultraviolet, and gamma radiation existed when all we could perceive/measure was visible light. The tree falling is real. The sensation of sound you experience resulting from the tree really falling is real not because you make it real but because you were present to interpret the potential for sensation in the disturbed air. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Jim |
||
|
StarrGazer Senior Member
since 2000-03-05
Posts 679Texas |
oh my ! My favorite subject to aggravate all of my friends and family with lol I feel that every thing we do everything we say is a perception of our own minds no one can feel the exact same way or see the same things we see as we do at the same level etc. in order for that to be possible one must live my life exactly precisely as I have done with this being impossible, I'm sure peoples perceptions would and do vary greatly. Ask any one what happiness is ...love? it is so often classified as a undefinable emotions ... now ask those same people what MAKES them happy you'll get a variety of different responses and none of them are wrong!!! After all we cannot tell a person what to feel we can just accept their perception of the subject is different than ours. lmao what a good topic !!! ... *~* Skyfyre ... how can you be sure the tree was standing to begin with ? Maybe that too was a perception ? lol *~* Look forward to reading more on this subject as I've said its a favorite of mine  ~*Love begins with a smile, grows with a kiss, and ends with a tear*~ |
||
|
HM3 Member
since 1999-07-15
Posts 169TX |
My thoughts are that perception is the awareness but, perspective is what forms the reality of "it". People generally have similar experiences but can often react quite differently when sharing the same thing at the same time depending on their perspective. Even in the animal world this happens. The best explanation is : "Things that upset a terrier may pass virtually unnoticed by a Great Dane." < !signature--> Work like money doesn't matter, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching... [This message has been edited by HM3 (edited 03-08-2000).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
What insight is gained by arguing things are because I say (or perceive) they are? What insight is gained by arguing things are because they are? More later, Brad |
||
|
StarrGazer Senior Member
since 2000-03-05
Posts 679Texas |
hmmmmm maybe just insight into other peoples perceptions perhaps? |
||
|
Tony Di Bart Member
since 2000-01-26
Posts 160Toronto, Canada |
Hello I am a product of my enviroment My enviroment is a product of my interpretaion Therefore, I am a product of my own interpretion. I am what i preceive. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tony, Hope you don't think I'm picking on you, just seems we got here at roughly the same time. I'll leave the formal logical problems of your statement to someone else. Still, your conclusion misses the point of what it is that is doing the perceiving? In order to perceive something, you have to be outside it. This becomes a rather important dilemma when one actually tries to pin down themselves. In order to see any statement about yourself, you actually have to be another 'you'. Okay, I admit this may be a little tricky to get but think about this: If you can see yourself, who is doing the seeing? If you can see yourself seeing yourself, who is doing that seeing? Yeah, it just keeps going and going and going (kind of like that pink little rabbit). Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Tony, the formal logic of your argument goes something like this: I am a product of my enviroment -> My enviroment is a product of my interpretation -> Therefore, I am a product of my own interpretation (I am what i perceive). [A -> B -> C]. There are a few problems with this argument. I can accept that "A" is arguably a true enough statement. I think "B", on the other hand, is at best a slippery slope and at worst begging the question. By a "slippery slope" I mean that your conclusion ("C") rests on the questionable truthfulness of "B". If "B" is false then "C" is false. "My enviroment is a product of my interpretation" ... how do you know this to be true? Can you demonstrate this to be the case? I think the big problem word is "product" and the notion that your environment is a "product" of your "interpretation". Sorry, don't have more time now. Jim |
||
|
Tony Di Bart Member
since 2000-01-26
Posts 160Toronto, Canada |
Hello I'm starting to like this. Brad First, I do not feel that you are picking on me but thanks for the concern. As far as answering your questions and Jim I'll try and do this all in one go. First, if I prove B then my statment stands. Is that correct? I am proceeding on this premise. How do I know that my enviorment is infact a product of my interpretion? Well. first and foremost I would like to state that in no way am I denying the existence of the physical, what ever that is. If I ask you what a camera is you have an idea about what a camera is, a mental image if you like. THis iamge has been formed by all the cameras you have seen. However, if I ask soemone who has never seen a camera what a camera is then they would not know what it is Therfore your interpretion is diffrent and a product of your enviorment. Let's takes this from the physical to the cerebral. The life experience that you have and anoter has is diffrent. This diffrence leads us to deal with the same situation diffrently. For example soemone who was made to feel stupid as a child-as an adult will react diffrently to someone calling them ignorant as oppposed to someone who was made to feel intelligent. They are exposed to the same stimulus and react diffrently. If we take it to the next step. Some people see adversity as a challenge to overcome, some see-it as oh no not again and do nothing. Again same stimulus diffrent reaction. Therfore, how they react to something is entirly dependent on how they see the situation, regardless of the situation. Also, Brad to get back to your question about who is seeing, and if I know I am seeing who is seeing etc. YOu cannot remove the observer from the enviorment. You are always a part of the enviorment. However, you can interpret the enviorment diffrently from me. Therfore, your enviorment is diffrent from mine and therefore, your interpretaion is diffrent and if you are a product of your enviorment then you are also a product of your interpretion. Circular. i know. Thanks i do not know if make any sense or not but thanks for the stimulation |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tony, Well, not exactly. Let's take a look at you first statement again: I am a product of my environment --Well, okay. But you seem to be arguing is that everything you see and don't see, perceive and don't perceive is the environment. You could go so far as to include DNA (thereby circumventing the Nature/nurture debate) and, if you wanted to, even spirituality (the soul). If this is the case, then I have no problems with this statement. However, it also doesn't say anything. If a statement explains everything, it explains nothing. Try it sometime and you'll realize what I mean. Or, I don't know, maybe you do already. My environmment is a product of my interpretation --If my above definition for 'environment' is correct, then this, by definition, is a false statement. Your environment has to be things that you cannot interpret, cannot perceive. You cannot look behind you and forward at the same time. Well, I can't anyway. There are unseen factors working in your environment that makes you what you are (a dynamic individual -- self-aware -- you partially perceive yourself as separate from the environment around you). You said that no person can get outside their environment. I agree (see above definition) but that was exactly my point. You cannot see, interpret, or perceive everything. You are bound my limited perception unless you are God. Therefore, I am a product of my own interpretion. Well, I've already pointed out the flaw but I wonder if you're not essentializing 'I' here. 'I' is not always, cannot be, only your conscious thoughts for those conscious thoughts are dependent on something else. You would say they are dependent on the environment, I guess, and therein lies the problem here. Even if conceivably you could know all possible factors in your environment, you still could not know how you know that. This is called various things but this idea of everything, this sense of immediacy would dissolve your ability to differentiate the very 'I' your talking about. I am what i perceive. But how do you perceive this? You can believe this, I guess, but it rests on the same shaky ground as objectivity does. Why do you want to limit yourself anyway? Brad |
||
|
Tony Di Bart Member
since 2000-01-26
Posts 160Toronto, Canada |
Hey Brad Thanks for your reply. Agian I have no time but I will return to further answer your questions. as far as the last statment you make about limiting myself. I think the oposite is true. If I realize that I and I alone am responsible for the self defeating bable then I cease to say the world effects me and I am such. I am waht I chose and therfore can change my own perception and thus who and what I am, perceptually and otherwise. This is the basis of all transformational thinking and movements. In fact I would say that it is necessary. See ya |
||
|
Mellon Collie Junior Member
since 2000-03-25
Posts 49united states of america |
dear christopher, being a former nihlist and therefore very familiar with the writings of nietzsche and other anti-realist philosophers, i often find myself pondering and posing this exact same question. the one i use most often is "how can you be sure that what you percieve as 'green' is the same color shade as what i percieve as 'green?' For all we know, you could be seeing the color i call 'blue' and i could be seeing what is actually orange, and both of us would be calling it green." i nearly gave the entire senior class brain tumors over this one. anyway, i've finally conluded that this is a question without answer. i have adopted the idea now that all things are based upon some measure of faith. i have faith that when a tree falls, the sound i hear is from the air waves moving from the tree's movement, etc. etc. science and all of nature is seen through the eyes of faith, whether we like to admit it or not. can we actually PROVE that anything makes sound? not absolutely, but we can certainly prove it to ourselves, and once we have done that we can prove it to others. once everyone accepts something, it becomes "true" in our eyes -- indisputable and solid, while in truth nothing is. everything is a matter of faith. as for your question concerning individual realities, this is another question impossible to answer. it really is a nihlistic concept: we cannot know anything for certain (what is blue?), and if we could know then we could not tell anyone (language is ineffecient to portray truth) and finally, even if we could tell them they could not understand (how do we know they are seeing the same blue we are?). just a few of my thoughts. sincerely, the beautiful freak |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Trees falling is not the question. The question is, If a man speaks in the woods and his wife is not there to hear him, is he still wrong? Pete |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Pete, Of course! Brad |
||
|
warmhrt Senior Member
since 1999-12-18
Posts 1563 |
Christopher, I totally agree with you (but I hate that tree question). Every person on earth has a brain that is uniquely their own...meaning different from everyone elses'. Each person has a different amount of developed nerve pathways and chemicals in their brains to enable message transmission. So, it would follow that each person, who would also have unique sensory organs, would take in information about our environment via those organs a bit differently from another. The next step is to process the sensory information in our unique brains. The product of the processing is our perceptions, which, in turn, determines our reality. Thus, each person has his/her own reality. That doesn't mean we won't see things close to the same as another...we will, but there will also be differences. The tree question answers itself...it tells us a tree has fallen, so, a tree has fallen...whether anyone hears it or not. JMHO Kris [This message has been edited by warmhrt (edited 03-28-2000).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Bumping in light of the recent "Reality" post by Lady Lost. |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
There is reality, there is perceptions of reality and then there is the reality of one's perceptions. Thinking or knowing does not change reality, reality is the ultimate trueism and can not be argued, only one's perception of such can be argued. What is real is real whether or not we can gauge it accurately. If you imagine pink elephants dancing the Irish jig over the moon then the reality is most likely that you have some major mellon problems and not that cosmonautical elephants can dance Now you may act accordingly to what you think you see and it may affect you as if it were real but the truth is that what you are percieving to be true-is false, the reality is that you are wrong in thinking that you are right.Kris: "The product of the processing is our perceptions, which, in turn, determines our reality. Thus, each person has his/her own reality." We can not have different realities only different perceptions of realities though these may govern our lives as if they are actually real when in fact the only "realness" they have is that we think them the truth. The reality of a lie is that it can seem as real as the truth and govern our actions as if it was the truth. Our different perceptions of reality does not equate to a different reality only to different responses and thoughts. The reality of differences lies not in a different reality only in different perceptions of reality. Reality is that which is real, scrutinized by perception does not change that, only our thoughts on reality change, though reality may be capable of change. In my opinion people often confuse opinions with truths and it seems like this is the case in this thread, perceptions are opinions and reality is the truth. Just because a judge declares a man guilty does not actually mean the man is guilty. Whether I am right or wrong about this subject does not change the truth of the matter and the reality of what I am saying is that I may only be thinking I am right when in fact I may be wrong. Something which is real can not be unreal at the same time, if this is true, then there is only one reality. Well that's my little blurb on the shamdamnthingymabobber. Sorry if its all over the place type of banter. Thanks, Trevor |
||
Moon Dust
since 1999-06-11
Posts 2177Skelmersdale, UK |
If a tree falls and no-one is around to see it what colour is it? Answer: no colour We are there to see our own Reality. "Those who will not learn to use this instrument well cannot be saved by an expanded alphabet; they will only afflict us with expanded gibberish" ~ |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I really don't have an opinion. Just wanted to look at Christopher's pic again.... |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Laws of physics? A ridiculous notion. physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action. If a tree falls in the forest..... That is assuming that there is a tree in the forest if no one is there, or if there even is a forest.... forget about if it makes a sound or not. physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves, we can believe the sun will rise every morning because of what we believe we know about the universe and its movements, but until that sun rises in the morning we cannot be sure it will. We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience, "the sun has risen everyday since one can remember, so we can infer that it will rise again tomorrow..." Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down? Or from different locations in the room? The only thing that we can be relatively sure of is that there is matter, what shape it takes is completely dependent upon our individual reality.  Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
JnR4eva Member
since 2000-08-07
Posts 377Bronx, NY |
Hey there...I dared not looked at the other replies simply b/c there are too many and what I will say has most likely already been said 20 different times over but hey, I still wish to add my two cents..... OK i think it basically stems from which point of view one is coming from...you can believe in realism or idealism..or another branch which I shall not get into for I do not too much about it but its called (generative realism) which is really a combo of both..which is what I believe in. ok if there is a red spot, is that red spot in fact a red spot? everyone will perceive it differently therefore how can any one claim that this spot is really a red spot?...a color blind person will claim its green, a madman will possibly claim its a black square...as an idealist u will argue how do we know that such a red spot is in fact red for in it is only the sensory stimulation which is relaying the message to the brain...so for instance if i perceive a red spot...but my sensory organs are telling my brain, green square..then i am forced to know a green square b/c i didn't know that it was a red spot from the beginning!!! but the prob. with this is that an idealist will denounce the valid world b/c they can never be sure from WHAT they are receiving these sensations from!! i could have perceived a red spot from viewing a whale swimming 30 fathoms under the sea!!! Yet the prob. with that is despite that we don't know that the red spot is a red spot...there is something out there for us to make us perceive that! so in a nutshell independent from anybody's perception, it further strengthens the case that a real and valid world does exist. And that's where idealist get stuck. then you get into realism which states that yes there is a REAL and valid world from which our sensory organs perceives. and this makes sense but the prob. with the realist is that he/she can not explain the connectives dealt with seeing a world and then PERCEIVING IT....for instance when we view an elephant, our minds do not 'explode' from the picture that we have of the elephant b/c its sooo big..our brains have coded it somehow someway to make it smaller, yet they don't know how ... and we must keep in mind that we do not see 'codes' when we see the elephant..we see the real thing...so how does the brain take that information from the elephant and code it? how do we experience that elephant? from neurological stimulation? yet how can that be if we sense the elephant and NOT stimulation's taking place in the brain?...so this is how the realist has gotten into trouble b/c they can't explain where or how the sensations from viewing to perceiving take place. with my understanding been said i will say that yes... a red spot does exist for i have perceived this..and this has become MY reality independent from what the REAL world has displayed to me, and independent of how others may see this 'spot'...yet I cannot know for sure that it is a red spot unless I am assuming I'm a sane man (which I am), that there is no deceiving demon or god tricking me (which I doubt), that my sensory organs are working 100% (which I hope), that I am not dreaming( which is probably not the case) Yet how can I be sure of these philosophical criteria?...well I can't!!!! I just have to hope so. the issue of the tree ... well being that i believe in the valid real world...YES the tree does exist and if it will fall, but if NOBODY is there to hear the tree fall, then by our definition of sound and hearing this tree will not make a squeak since nobody is there to pick up the sound waves which come off that tree as it falls...however if there are birds in the area...then yes..it has made a sound for they will be the recipients of the wavesso yes it will be real to me if i were there when it fell, can i call it my reality? YES..can I call it the REAL reality that exist independent of our perceptions?..well assuming that u can be sure of those philosophical criteria mentions before..then yes you can..but if not, then sorry, you've only got a portion of this puzzle correct. Hope this made sense "my love is my motivation my love is my inspiration perception of this poem is your interpretation" -- rlt |
||
|
JnR4eva Member
since 2000-08-07
Posts 377Bronx, NY |
Hi again, I actually did get around to reading every single reply....man there is some good, and silly stuff in here...I wanted to comment on JP's comment a little for something wasn't right as I was reading... "Laws of physics? A ridiculous notion. Physical laws only exist if we are there to observer them in action.(JP)" Really? Do they? then how can we account for the dinosaurs that existed here in this earth?...are we rejecting their existence? That there once was a warm sun to provide them with warmth? That there was once water that aided in their survival? We were never there during this time period to 'witness' their existence and the world around them but we surely do hold that they did exist for evidence is excavated from the earth virtually everyday. Plus scientific breakthroughs have lead scientist to very good deductive reasoning for their existence...then how so are the laws of physics a ridiculous notion if they have been taking their course before we even existed? "physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves, we can believe the sun will rise every morning because of what we believe we know about the universe and its movements, but until that sun rises in the morning we cannot be sure it will. We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience, "the sun has risen everyday since one can remember, so we can infer that it will rise again tomorrow..."(JP) i was reading this and i was saying to myself (and i claim that maybe its JUST me lol) but this doesn't seem as a physical question..it seems to be more a philosophical question which might perhaps borrow from physical thinking. it isn't a PROVEN fact that the sun will shine (or rather that the world will continue to rotate, and the planets will continue to rotate) we know HOW AND WHY (to some extent) the sun will most likely shine everyday but it just isn't proven physically that the sun WILL rise everday!!!...that is more philosophical..don't u think? to me e=mc^2 is a physical law....or that the integral of acceleration is its velocity, or that the double integral is its distance...those are physical laws...for they are proven through scientific techniques...but not that question u have asked...to ME it seems more philosophical than a physical proven law. (i mean scientist do believe that sun will explode one day...so I guess that would further prove why it will not shine every day lol)..i don't know maybe it's me.... Hope this made sense  .< !signature--> "my love is my motivation my love is my inspiration perception of this poem is your interpretation" -- rlt [This message has been edited by JnR4eva (edited 08-29-2000).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello, JP: "Laws of physics? A ridiculous notion. physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action." Speaking of ridiculous notions..... Does your statement include video cameras or sound recorders or are you saying only if we are physically there to observe something will it exist? I'm taking a guess you believe more in Biblical creation then you do in a random BIG BANG type of theory? I say this because for your statement to be true would kind of mean that you somehow feel that things in creation are there to cater to us. Our actions control physical laws instead of vice versa. "physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves," No, we only validate them once we prove them to ourselves. Their validity or existence does not come from us because we do not dictate their nature. "we can believe the sun will rise every morning because of what we believe we know about the universe and its movements, but until that sun rises in the morning we cannot be sure it will." I don't see how that statement leans validity to your point. Do you think that if the sun didn't rise....which in reality the sun really doesn't rise but rather the earth, while orbiting the sun, rotates on its axis thereby creating the illusion of rising.....that it would be because it somehow escaped the laws that govern existence....or are you trying to say that no one was awake to witness the sun rising therefor it didn't bother? If the sun did not rise it would be because a physical law had made this so and not because we couldn't prove that the sun would rise that day. "We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience, "the sun has risen everyday since one can remember, so we can infer that it will rise again tomorrow..."" It is true that physics derives from witnessing patterns but it is these very physical laws that you speak of that also tell us that eventually the sun won't "rise" due to a stars penchant of burning off all its energy. Even if we are not here will this still happen....it will just be cold and dark one day, forever after on planet earth....regardless of whether or not people want that. "Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down? Or from different locations in the room?" Congratulations to Bertrand Russell but how does that give what you said validity? A man with paper bag shoes once told me he was Jesus Christ here to give the world more breakfast cereals. The whole problem of your arguement is that by your theory you say that things only exist or obey physics after they are found but we know this not to be true because you can not see anything that does not exist nor could something like a planet or universe remain stable if it did not have a rhyme or reason to it. You need something first to be there in order for it to be discovered. For example, you are an astrologer and you come across a new found planet....by you're way of thinking it only came into existence because you saw it. But how could you see something if it was not there to begin with? Also if it was in existence before you saw it but didn't play by the rules of some sort of physical law, then what was it doing before you saw it?....just bouncing off of the other planets in the universe? It's an interesting thought, things only being the way they are because we are there to observe them and it would be a very interesting and thought provoking story if you were to make it one, however as far as fact goes, well I don't think it rings true. Okay I'm starting to babble a bit here but think of the time before science existed and humans were ape like? DId the earth and the physical laws which governed it change daily because ape-boy could not prove any of it? Or were they bound to the same laws we are, such as gravity? You are looking at existence like we were created and a pattern was born from us rather then a pattern was born and we were created from that....when I think the latter might be more accurate a statement. Although I disagree with what you said I must thank you for making me think. Take care, Trevor |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Trevor, just a correction on a very, very slight scientific lapse, if I may? Stars don't just burn off all their energy, but rather follow a specific evolutionary process as nuclear fusion battles gravity. Honestly, I don't remember if Sol is massive enough to ever go nova (I don't think so), but I do know it's "next stage" will be a giant red star - and its corona will reach out to just about Jupiter's orbit. It will never be cold and dark one day on planet Earth. We'll be vaporized. (Of course, that won't happen for roughly another five billion years. But it's never too early to think about moving… ) |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Correct-toe muendo Ron as always. Yes a transformation or evolution would have more correctly described what happens to stars. Sorry about the slip up and thanks for the correction. Kinda fits into the energy can not be destroyed only changed type of thing. "It will never be cold and dark one day on planet Earth. We'll be vaporized." The whole planet or just life? "(Of course, that won't happen for roughly another five billion years. But it's never too early to think about moving… )" My bags are already packed and I'm calling back the mother ship to pick us all up! Thanks, Trevor |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Hey Ron, If we still gotta another five billion years, where are those damn nuetrinos? Thinking of Clarke's novel -- what was it? -- "The Songs of Distant Earth"? Brad |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I did say that the only thing that one could be relatively sure of is the existence of matter (what constitutes matter is another debate I suppose...), but what shape that matter takes is mutable, dependent upon our observance of it. I did not say that the red spot on the wall did not exist, I merely suggested that the red spot on the wall that I see is not the same red spot on the wall that you may see. Physical "laws" (the very term is innacurate) are delusional in thier very nature. They are based upon past experience and inferred belief of continued validity. No one can be 100% positive that there will be a sun in the sky tomorrow, for any number of reasons, all we can be sure of is our belief that since there was a sun in the sky for all of our yesterdays there will continue to be a sun in the sky. Is this a law? Hardly, just a belief. As for the existence of dino and the gang... we cannot be sure of thier exisitence, we can deduce that they existed because the matter we see today resembles the fossilized remains of something that we have theorized about. Einsteins "theory of relativity" is simply that, a theory., does it help explain the action of matter in the fashion to which we have observed matter in action? Yes. Is it a law? No, merely an explanation of what has been observed and an inferrence as to what we believe will happen again. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Trev... Your assumptions regarding my beliefs are woefully incorrect  Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm not going to get into this one guys but I just wanted to point out that the most recent of the Atlantic has a poem called "Fossils" that goes right to the heart of the "dino" question. Check it out (it's online). Thanks, Brad |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello, JP: "I did not say that the red spot on the wall did not exist, I merely suggested that the red spot on the wall that I see is not the same red spot on the wall that you may see. Physical "laws" (the very term is innacurate) are delusional in thier very nature." I think some of my misinterpretation of your arguement stems from this statement you made: "If a tree falls in the forest..... That is assuming that there is a tree in the forest if no one is there, or if there even is a forest.... forget about if it makes a sound or not." Combine that with the red-spot theory then it kinda sounded like you were saying universal laws (whatever they may be) are governed according to whether or not we are there to witness them and may only exist if we witness them. If that was not what you were implying with that tree-forest thing then what was meant by that? "Physical "laws" (the very term is innacurate) are delusional in thier very nature." The term is accurate but our definitions or beliefs of what might be a physical law might be incorrect. Perhaps you statement might be more accurate if you were to say that Physical "laws" are real and definite (even if that includes consistent change) and that it is not them which are delusional in nature but rather it is our perception that is inacurate? If there is a fault in physical laws it lies within our interpretation of them and not in accordance to their behaviour. Perhaps the laws which govern reality are perfect and we're just to small or "flawed" to see it. Also for you to make a statement such as physical laws are dellusional in nature would imply that you know for certain the nature of physical laws....which I believe you do not. If you really do know the laws which govern the physical world I'd love to hear about them, this would definitely lend more validity to you knowing the nature of physical laws. Perhaps a more accurate statement might be that the theories we hold on physical laws can be misleading in nature. "They are based upon past experience and inferred belief of continued validity." I'm going to have to disagree with you again. IMO, Physical laws, universal laws or laws that govern reality are not based upon our past, present or future experience. They are set and on track regardless of how or what we do. However our interpretation of these laws is based upon past experience....but what we consider to be a steadfast thing doesn't mean that it is so, what we think and what is aren't always in-line. Therefore physical laws are not based upon past experience and inferred belief of continued validity but rather our belief system is based upon them. "No one can be 100% positive that there will be a sun in the sky tomorrow, for any number of reasons, all we can be sure of is our belief that since there was a sun in the sky for all of our yesterdays there will continue to be a sun in the sky. Is this a law? Hardly, just a belief." This is the part where I agree. Science has probably been wrong more times then it has been right. Mankind is so damn ignorant of the actual possibilities surrounding the universe and the laws that bind it, one can never be 100 percent sure of what will happen next. But if I had to place a bet.... "Einsteins "theory of relativity" is simply that, a theory., does it help explain the action of matter in the fashion to which we have observed matter in action? Yes. Is it a law? No, merely an explanation of what has been observed and an inferrence as to what we believe will happen again." Now this is where I'm led to believe we are in more agreement than we realize and that perhaps this is more of a debate on words then on meaning. "Your assumptions regarding my beliefs are woefully incorrect" "woefully incorrect"...now I know you are an aspiring poet but must you be so dramatic JP? Hey I only work with what you give me to feed from. Well to clear up things I'll rehash what you said and revamp my rebuttal a bit. "physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action." I contend that these laws do exist regardless if we have the ability to observe and understand them. Our perception is based upon them and not vice versa. "If a tree falls in the forest..... That is assuming that there is a tree in the forest if no one is there, or if there even is a forest.... forget about if it makes a sound or not." This is where I thought you were implying that things may only exist if we are there to observe them. If this is not what you were implying by this statement could you please explain what it meant? I don't want to assume anything and become woefully incorrect again. "physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves." Whether we consider them valid or not has no relevancy to whether or not they really do exist and act accordingly or even if they can prove themselves to us. "We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience" We base our laws or more accurately theories and beliefs, upon the physical laws that we percieve through our past experience. Our laws may very well differ from the real ones. Your use of "these physical laws", I'm interpretting as a reference to the actual physical laws that govern the universe rather than man-made laws. "Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down?" This is where I questioned the relevancy of Bertrand's statement because I felt that what we see, though it may differ from person to person (and I agree with Bertrand on that), really matters not regarding to what really exists nor changes the reality of things. Perhaps I should have be more specific in my earlier reply. "The only thing that we can be relatively sure of is that there is matter" No more sure of that then anything else. If there is the possibility we have imagined one thing, does there not exist the possibility that we have imagined it all? "what shape it takes is completely dependent upon our individual reality." Perhaps a more accurate statement would be what shape we PERCIEVE it as is completely dependant upon our individual reality or individual observations of the ACTUAL reality. The actual reality of a shape is not dependant on our perceptions therefor something can not take a shape based upon our individual reality but rather we percieve a shape based upon our individual reality. The shape remains, only our peceptions of it differ. We feed off reality and not vice versa. I think if there is confusion in my response it may be because I'm not a hundred percent sure when you are referring to man's beliefs of what the physical laws are and when you are referring to the actual physical laws that govern the universe. You don't seem to make a clear distinction between the two. Same applies when you speak of reality. With all that said, am I still "woefully incorrect" with my assumptions? Perhaps, since my assumptions were based upon what you wrote, it was not I who was incorrectly interpreting your words but you who was inaccurately relaying them? Anyways thanks for the interesting discussion, I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this. Take care, Trevor [This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 09-01-2000).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
I'd like to add one more thing I just thought of... our interpretation of physical laws or the laws that govern the universe are most likely inaccurate for we are only working on a small scale, both physically and timewise. To accurately describe the nature of something one must be able to record the behaviour of the subject, in whole, from the start of an action(birth) unto the finish of its action(death) and be certain at all times of its intent and purpose. And since we were not there at the beginning of creation, nor will we see its end, nor can we see all of it at the same time, should we ever expect to, while we live, understand the nature of the universe nor the laws that confine it and us. I'd also like to add that was not completely an original thought but partially borrowed from a modern philosopher who's name escapes me....but hey its my own words and understanding and I thank the forgotten philosopher for the idea Thanks, Trevor [This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 09-01-2000).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Since we've already wandered into scientific realms as a basis (or supposed lack of basis) for reality, let's branch into the heart of much of modern scientific thought. If 2 + 2 equals 4 for me, what will it equal for you? |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Trev - "Speaking of ridiculous notions..... I'm taking a guess you believe more in Biblical creation then you do in a random BIG BANG type of theory? I say this because for your statement to be true would kind of mean that you somehow feel that things in creation are there to cater to us. Our actions control physical laws instead of vice versa." "woefully incorrect"...now I know you are an aspiring poet but must you be so dramatic JP? Hey I only work with what you give me to feed from. Two minor points: 1. You speak of a belief in Biblical Creation as if that is a bad thing. Yet you seem to place a strong faith in the theory of evolution. Personally it appears as if both explanations are fraught with the pitfalls of faith and assumption. Just to clear things up a smidge... I believe that life on this planet was the result of genetic seeding from an advanced life form from another place in the universe, I believe that the existence of our planet was the result of some type of "big bang" or some other cosmic function of planet formation... the actual dissertation on this idea can be found in old "Prose forum" posts and in an earlier post in this this forum (Evolution of humankind). 2. Aspiring poet? I think not. I already am a poet. While the quality of my poetry may be subject for debate, I certainly have no aspirations to become what I already am...(I do perhaps aspire to be a better poet though...) As for being dramatic... this is a philosophy forum on a poetry website, where else should one be dramatic? Ron - 2+2=4 for me as well.... did you know that 2 wrongs squared, divided by the square root of 27 actually does equal a right? Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello, JP: "You speak of a belief in Biblical Creation as if that is a bad thing." Now who is assuming? I did not speak of biblical creation as a bad thing but rather that pieced together soundbite did. If you're going to make it look like you are quoting me then please use the full statement rather then piecing it together where you see fit to give it the meaning you want to. We are having a discussion, not running for office. The actual line was: "Speaking of ridiculous notions..... Does your statement include video cameras or sound recorders or are you saying only if we are physically there to observe something will it exist? I'm taking a guess you believe more in Biblical creation then you do in a random BIG BANG type of theory?.." and that was a rebuttal towards your statement of: "Laws of physics? A ridiculous notion. physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action." Now where did I say that biblical creation was a bad thing???? Please point that out. All I said was that I thought you probably believed in biblical creation rather than Big Bang because all you comments on reality seemed to be focused on the idea that reality is shaped by us and not vice versa....and in the bible creation was made for man...that's who I strung the two together. I personally don't believe that creation happened how the bible said it did but hey, that's just my belief. And even in that statement I did not say what my personal belief in creation is but rather I was trying to say it seemed, out of the two most popular beliefs in NA, Big Bang and Biblical, that you seeeeeemed like the type who would believe in Biblical over Big Bang. "Yet you seem to place a strong faith in the theory of evolution." Not a strong faith but a stronger faith in theory of evolution over text-book religions. And I do agree with you that both have many holes in them. All the theories on creation are currently unprovable. I really try not to believe any one of them but rather think about the possibilities. "I believe that life on this planet was the result of genetic seeding from an advanced life form from another place in the universe, I believe that the existence of our planet was the result of some type of "big bang" or some other cosmic function of planet formation." Well its about as believable and possible as all the other theories. So when is the mother ship coming back to pick us all up? J/K "Aspiring poet? I think not. I already am a poet." Well there are people who write poems and then there are poets. Take another guess at which one you are. Once again, I'm just ribbing ya, I honestly didn't mean anything by that comment. So I'll apoligize now if that offended you but I'll leave it in just in case you get a chuckle from it."While the quality of my poetry may be subject for debate, I certainly have no aspirations to become what I already am...(I do perhaps aspire to be a better poet though...)" Very good response actually. "As for being dramatic... this is a philosophy forum on a poetry website, where else should one be dramatic?" In front of the mirror at home while singing into your comb, "Vo-lar-eeee, woe-oh, compadre-oh-oh-oh-oh!". Nice response JP for someone who avoided all the real issues of discussion and didn't answer any of the questions asked of him. Maybe you are running for office then...I mean with all the sidestep statements Now you didn't bother to refute any of my statements, how should I percieve this? Should I assume that you are in agreement with what I have said? or, Should I assume that you just don't have a solid enough response? or Should I just assume we were in disagreement over the wording and not the actual meaning?Anyways if you have any more thoughts on any of the major points we were debating then I'd love to hear them. And please no more off topic soundbites. Thanks and take care, Trevor PS Ron I'll get back to the 2+2=4 thingy, right now its time to view the back of my eyelids. [This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 09-02-2000).] |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hello, RON: "Since we've already wandered into scientific realms as a basis (or supposed lack of basis) for reality, let's branch into the heart of much of modern scientific thought." "If 2 + 2 equals 4 for me, what will it equal for you?" When speaking sctrictly of learned and applied mathematics,for me, 2+2=4. But what other ways could one look at it, 2+2=1(a whole), 2+2=2+2(only the exact same thing can really equal itself)...dunno these are just scatter brained ideas I thought I'd throw in for the sake of discussion. Science and math are the tools we use to define our reality and they are great tools but because of the faith placed in science and the masses lack of indepth scienctific or mathematical knowledge (that's where I fit in) these great tools occasionally have projected the wrong reality and caused people to believe in things that are not true or are only the partial truth. Science once said that the earth was flat, science once said that the earth was the center of the universe, science once said that the sun revolved around the earth....all of these theories were considered the truth by the vast majority but are now proven wrong. Now this is science of old and we now chuckle at those theories but I believe that is all relative to the times. Our percieved universe is so much larger and smaller then their universe. We have a broader knowledge of Micro and Macro things which give us a better look into what might be the truth of something, yet I still believe that a little too much faith is sometimes placed in science especially when concerning new to light information or exploration. One example might be in the field of medicine. We are constantly discovering that many things we thought to be the cause of sickness are not the actual cause. For instance, only recently has it been discovered that the main cause of ulcers are micro-organisms instead of what it was before, which I believe they blamed it on stress causing over-reaction of stomach bile or something like that (Hey, I've never claimed to be a scientist so if any of my specifics are wrong I apoligize but its the meaning I'm going for behind my examples rather then the examples themselves...yes this is my scapegoat statement that absolves me from any wrong doing through acknowledgement of my ignorance ). So in that example the reality of what we thought an ulcer to be was stress related where as now our reality is that it is a micro-organism that causes them. We may later find out that this too is false. Another example is only in the last century (even less) or so did science acknowledge that not everyone with a physical disability or mental disability were mentally retarded. Up until then, pretty much all handicapped people were clumped together and thought to be lost causes. A deaf-mute with the potential of Einstien would be thrown into horrible institutions to rot because the common belief was that they were retarded. So once again science was wrong in its diagnosis.However, science is a tool that builds upon itself and should not be expected to be accurate all the time. Its often through its wrong findings and elimination of these from an equation of sorts, that gives us the truth...or supposed truth. But as we uncover more of our world new factors are needed in the equations to be more accurate with what might be the truth. For example, 100 years ago very little (in comparison to today) was known about micro-organisms so it would be impossible for a doctor to assertain that microscopic creatures caused ulcers. It wasn't until certain information about micro-organisms was uncovered that we could deduce that it was them causing ulcers. Am I making sense here? Since we don't know everything it might be safe to say we don't know much. A new reality seems to be discovered daily and ironically it's usually caused by science's disbelief in itself. Well that's my thoughts so far on your discussion starter Ron. I'm anxious to read what you've baited me into and how you'll swiss cheese my statements, as per usual But damn, that's the fun part for me, I open my big trap and through discussion I get to learn a new possibility, and often a better interpretation of the truth.Thanks and take care, Trevor |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
To me, the hallmark of science is predictability. If A happens and then B happens, assuming the conditions C, is the inevitable result going to be X? Using this criteria, I think the word "science" as commonly meant is too vague. Just as the Eskimo's have many words for snow, we need a bit more precision when we're talking about science. As a start, let's break it down into three "types" of science. Let's call science that is based on pure mathematics Hard Science. If 2 + 2 does indeed always equal 4, we can say that the predictability of Hard Science is 100 percent. Much of the so-called physical sciences fall into this category. If you accelerate a particle to 97 percent the speed of light, Einstein's equations predict exactly how much energy you'll need to apply to get it up to 98 percent. The Soft Sciences are based on experimentation, rather than on mathematics. Your medical example, Trevor, would fall in this category. If you closely examine biopsies from a thousand ulcers and find Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) bacterium in the vast majority, you might well reach the same conclusions Australian physician Barry Marshall did. Does that mean a biopsy is always going to find H. pylori? No. Statistically, 95% of persons with gastric ulcers, and 100% of persons with chronic gastritis have this bacterium within the stomach. The organism has not been found in healthy persons (no stomach ulcers or gastritis). No guarantees, but nonetheless a high degree of predictability. Then we have what I tend to call the Gooey Sciences. These are based on cause and effect, but the control mechanisms of the Soft Sciences rarely exist. We simply can't open up a human brain and "see" how a person's childhood affected their personality. So, in my estimation, much of psychiatry falls into the Gooey category. For different reasons, most Social sciences are Gooey; not because we can't "see," but rather because the variable are beyond our ken. I personally believe that many, many of the things we call science today are still in the Gooey stage. All three of these categories overlap. While much of physics is Hard, there are certainly Soft portions (the Big Bang) and even a bit of Gooey (where are those damn neutrinos?). Medicine may have turned the corner to Soft, but there's still a lot of Gooey left over from our past. And psychiatry is, to some extent, becoming Softer and less Gooey every day. The criteria, again, is always predictability. Trevor, you hit the nail when you said, "Science and math are the tools we use to define our reality," and made exactly the point I was trying to broach. How much they define our reality depends on which category of science you're going to use in your definition. Case in point: "Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down?" Red is nothing more than a specific wavelength of light, very much a Hard Science. Measuring it from different angles and distances, we can determine precisely just how red the red spot really is. It doesn't matter what you see, nor does it matter what I see. As long as 2 + 2 equals 4, we can nonetheless agree. Our realities MUST mesh. Now, if you want to talk about what affect that red spot is going to have on your mood, we start moving into a very, very Gooey realm. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Don't suppose somebody wants to start another thread here? I think the numbers game is interesting but surprised nobody has attacked the 2+2=4 argument at its source. Quickly, the above equation consists of signs, a language, a game -- you have to know the rules before you can play. As a result, it is open to interpretation. What if someone else played by different rules? If they were looking at this equation, they might just as equally argue that 2+2=5 (as the Orwellian example goes). I just gave a hint on my source though -- the wonderful world of language games. Just hope someone replies on a different thread. Brad |
||
|
JnR4eva Member
since 2000-08-07
Posts 377Bronx, NY |
hey there...i took brad's advice and did not post another reply on the reality question being that this seems to be a new question..or rather a new discussion...so i have continued it entiteld.. of the sciences..here in philo 101...i replied to some of trevor's, ron's and brad's comments. "my love is my motivation my love is my inspiration perception of this poem is your interpretation" -- rlt |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Hey Trev, when a discussion, or the responses from particular writers begin to show signs of tension or ire, I usually move away from the discussion. A lot of folks here are arguing a point of view in which they believe in vehemently and their responses show that passion. I choose not to get into a battle over something that I could not swear to on a witness stand as something I firmly believe in. Add to that the fact that I am just a poor slob who got his degree (not an education) from a second-rate state university and I have to admit my pool of knowledge in confoundly shallow...Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
Trevor Senior Member
since 1999-08-12
Posts 700Canada |
Hi JP, "when a discussion, or the responses from particular writers begin to show signs of tension or ire, I usually move away from the discussion. A lot of folks here are arguing a point of view in which they believe in vehemently and their responses show that passion." Well I must admit I do sometimes get a little caught up in things and create some of the tension you speak of and occasionally argue vehemently over something and if I came off like that in this thread then I apoligize for turning you off of this discussion. However it is through peoples passion for discussion and refusal to let ideas just peter out that we discover new things, we learn new things and often, if an open mind is kept to the possibilities, we grow from it. Personally I think often its the tension of a discussion that helps drag out more info....also on occasion has been known to drag out cussing and fighting too I have to admit I was kinda disappointed at first that you didn't continue the discussion but I respect your choice not to get too involved in a discussion of something that is a grey area. "I choose not to get into a battle over something that I could not swear to on a witness stand as something I firmly believe in." I'm sorry if I made it seem like a battle, like I said I'm guilty of sometimes getting into it a little too much. I'm not here to "win" an aurguement, though at times I'll fight like I'm trying to win, but my main goal in these discussions are learning. I'll concede that if any of my points seem valid in this discussion its not solely my doing but rather because of yours and others interaction with me....through that stimuli I was able to form these thoughts. Without my discussion with you, my ideas would be so much more shallow. That I try to apply to all my thoughts. I only wish I could find a way to shift the blame when I say something wayyyy off the mark "Add to that the fact that I am just a poor slob who got his degree (not an education) from a second-rate state university and I have to admit my pool of knowledge is confoundly shallow..." Nothing to put yourself down over, education doesn't begin nor end with the education system. I didn't even graduate high school. If you really believe that your pool of knowledge is shallow then shouldn't it be more reason to engage in discussions such as the one's found at 101. It's one thing to read a conversation, it's another thing to be a part of it. There's some quote, and I'm not sure who said it but it goes something like this, "Teach me, so I may know. Show me, so I may do. Involve me, so I may understand." Anyways I appreciate you posting a reason why you didn't feel like continuing the discussion and I respect that decision. Thanks and take care, Trevor |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
Trev - Thank you for building my self esteem, I really appreciate it. One of the main reasons I chose to bow out of this discussion, and occassionally others, is because a lack of passion for the topic. There are many things I have knowledge about, many things that I believe are possible, and many things I agree or disagree with, yet there are few things which I believe in so passionately that I choose to delve into in any extraordinarily great depth. That is not to say I do not dwell on these things, nor does it mean that I do not spend time deep in my own thoughts debating the possibility of life in other worlds, or the intracacies of DNA and how I think humanity will never be able to create life, or why those plastic things on the shoelaces have no name that anyone can convince me is true... I do these things regularly, yet I hold no firm position on most of them and have not done the research to support an argument which I have no impetus to make. As for when the mothership is coming... just because an advanced lifeform genetically seeded this planet and has possible visited us in the past and present to help guide our evolution, that does not mean that they did so to harvest us and bring us back to the "home world". Does a country colonate a new world in order to comeback and take everyone home? No. They create colonies to expand their scope of power and population, or perhaps just to experiment and see how one would fair in a different environment. Lastly, the education comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek for Ron's benefit. Him and his elitist attitude.... (j/k Ron, please don't smite me...)Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. JP "Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
