But if it turns out that there is a God or that spirits do exist. I can accept that. I have no problems with such things. I just do not believe in the soul unless there is evidence that suggests so.
@gariadara Infinity being all there really IS has no reason to prove and no "otherness" to prove its existence to. Being infinity there is no room for another presence besides infinity itself. By the way, once someone seemingly proves the existence of anything labeled as spiritual such as god, reality, infinity, actuality, whatever term you choose to use, then it would be reduced down to a concept and a concept is contained and limited by its very nature. In essence, that which IS is ineffable,
@iamlumin No, I mean life OBJECTIVELY, as in the way EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST defines it. MEasurable, observable, life. Cells, DNA, molecules, the things that enable life to exist. Without these living things to manifest life, there can be no life in any objective sense. Let's stick to objectivity please. How else can you define life objectively without talking about biological life? Spirituality is SUBJECTIVE and is different from person to person, again, I'm NOT interested in subjectivity.
@gariadara Scientist study phenomena, within a finite context and thus infinity is not within their scope of understanding and never will be. Let's not talk about it at all. Again, you're stuck in a right / wrong paradigm and truth which is reality has no opposite, no opposition, no duality. Opposition is inherent to duality. For every person with an opinion like yours there are hundreds more with conflicting opinions, all arriving nowhere.
@iamlumin "For every person with an opinion like yours there are hundreds more with conflicting opinions, all arriving nowhere."
That the universe is finite is not an opinion. I have always been talking about natural phenomena. IT is you who want to talk about supernatural things. I have no belief in nor do I care about spirituality.
@gariadara To you it's supernatural. I never said it was supernatural. Reality is the most natural as it is all there is and it is infinity and not even that.
@gariadara Infinity is not a immeasurable quatity it has nothing to do with quantity. If you are infinity there is no need for measurement as there is nothing to measure yourself against. Listen evidently you "think" you already know it all and most of what you think you know is based upon what someone else thought they knew. Good luck with that. It's all good.
@iamlumin What? Infinity means no limit, right? how do you know that infinity has nothing to do with quantity? do YOU know it all? you certainly sounds like it.
look at what you wrote. You're more dualistic & contradictory than Taoism. And you don't see the irony. I try to establish common ground by asking for objectivity. You did everything you could to avoid talking about objective things while claiming that what you know is "FACT." You insulted my maturity. You implied superiority in experience by saying I don't see what you see. In the end you haven't spoken one meaningful thing. If that is how I'll end up "knowing" "infinity," no thanks.
@iamlumin SCientists understand infinity more than you can even explain to me what it means to you. Ever heard of Stephen Hawking's time and anti-time theory?
@gariadara . In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper. It is all symbolic, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. ... The frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances.
@iamlumin Eddington is talking about the margin of error that exists across perception. Just because we see images of the real thing doesn't mean the real thing isn't there. Heck it HAS to be there to cast a shadow (I've said this before).
And look up Stephen Hawking's book : A History of Time.
@gariadara I'm already aware of Stephen Hawking's and his books. Take your head out of your intellectual ass and open your eyes. You just might get a glimpse of reality. Now, I"m moving on. Best of luck with your fixed ideas.
@iamlumin You keep telling me to open my eyes. Yet you don't tell me what you're trying to let me see. You claim that if I don't already see it there is no use telling me. You insinuate that I am blind compared to you. You are better than me. Great. Kudos to you. You post the same quote from the same scientist twice, all you do is repeat in circles and circles about infinity and reality but you don't define them for me and you have the nerve to say that the one with fixed ideas is me. Laughable
@iamlumin you say you are well aware of Stephen Hawking's books , yet you made the statement that no scientist could even understand the concept of infinity, well maybe infinity in how YOU define it.
I'm sure your mind is important enough for Hawking to bother developing telepathy so he can decipher your unwilling-to-define-anything-and-thus-can't-have-meaningful-discourse brain.
@gariadara Who's tying to explain anything to you? A personal cannot comprehend what they have failed to realize on their own. If you're comfortable with your ever changing facts, figures and masses of data then so enjoy. I really have not a care about it.
Not all scientific facts change. There are things that exhibit much variation, and there are other things that do not. When scientists develop newer better methods to record data, the better data will of course take the place of the old data. IT doesn't mean things are "changing" or that data is necessarily unreliable. Think about the telescope. In the 19th century, telescopes are not very advanced and don't see very clearly. Now we have Hubble. But we see the same stars, just clearer.
How are you defining infinity? Nothing SO FAR has been OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED to be infinite. I repeat: NOTHING. The Universe (the observable universe, that is) has a DEFINITE VOLUME as measured by scientists all across the world. Infinity is a concept, a mathematical and philosophical and theoretical one. It only exists in math and in our heads. However, infinity is also in everything in the sense that you can always reduce the scale of your point of view to ever smaller sizes.
@gariadara Personally I'm not defining it. Infinity is not a thing, an object, a concept. That which is infinity is not the word infinity. The word is simply a pointer. Infinity is actually non-numerical. Infinity is not a very large finity no more than now is a moment between a past and a future. Now is timeless.
@iamlumin Of course infinity is non-numerical. Even in math, they teach you about "non-numbers." Math doesn't mean numbers dude. Numbers are just part of the discipline of math. Infinity is not a Real Number, it's an Infinitesimal.
@iamlumin You may define life in your own way. But you can't talk about it in your own way with a bunch of scientists, atheists, people from all around the world and have a meaningful discussion without defining a common ground. There is only one common ground regarding this topic between all these different people and that is biology. In biology, life on earth began roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Now THAT is a fact. Verified, studied, and published.
@gariadara Really, that's a fact? That's very funny. Please, where you there? Verified, studied and published, really? Every so-called fact you're speaking of is open to debate by other scientist. So you're saying there was no life prior to life appearing 4.5 billion years ago, wow. And what time was it when this happened considering the concept of time did not exist and the concept of a billion did not exist? And on what playing field and in what environment did this so-called life appear?
@iamlumin Do you know what geology is? What about carbon dating? If you don't know about these things, please go and do some research before coming back. I wasn't "there." But the slab of sediment the trilobite fossil got buried in was. Time is not a concept. It is a temporal dimension that is measurable. What time? 4.5 billion revolutions of the earth around the sun ago. A year is simply a full revolution of the earth around the sun.
@gariadara So now you're feeling threatened as you're beginning to attack. Go and do some research, please, I forgot more than you'll ever know about life and the manifestations of life. All of which you speak is simply agreements, labels, and by the way, open to a lot of interpretation. This is proved by the fact that every so often a scientist will come out and annouce that what they thought was fact is now being replaced with a new fact. Of course, until that changes.
@iamlumin "This is proved by the fact that every so often a scientist will come out and annouce that what they thought was fact is now being replaced with a new fact. Of course, until that changes."
That has nothing to do with interpretation but improving methods of observation and experimentation. Science is THE most unbiased field. The reason old facts get over-turned sometimes is because we the scientists always try to better our understanding, and with newer methods we rethink things.
Life has no beginning and no end? did your religious myths tell you that? or are you God so you "know it all?" life certainly has a beginning. It did not exist before the earth and the earth didn't exist till 5 billion years ago. Learn some geological history, you may one day not sound like a babbling superstitious fool. And please don't tell me you're talking about the soul. There is no evidence such a thing exists. Adios.
@iamlumin There is no difference biologically speaking. I'm talking about life forms, before which there could not have been life. It seems YOU are talking about some mysterious spiritual "life force" that had existed before proteins and cells. I do not believe in spirits. I don't think the soul exists. I think when we die, we rot and become the soil. I don't think there is any purpose or meaning to existence. I don't think there is anything beyond the material universe.
@gariadara There could not have been life? You mean life in the way 'you" define it. Even the best physicist will tell you there really is no material universe. It's 99.99999999…. empty space.So your own paradigm refutes your own belief. Stop thinking so much and you might just see reality for what it IS.
@iamlumin A physicist will tell you the universe is mostly empty space, that is correct. But no one will tell you there is no material universe. That's laughable. There is material in space, a whole lot of it. And it is measurable. That's how we found out about how little matter there is IN RELATION to space. But the matter is most certainly there. Space is part of the physical universe, it is a spacial dimension and at the quantum level, particles pop in and out of existence constantly.
@gariadara You're stuck in an intellectual paradigm rooted in duality and thus this discussion is pointless. You "think" you know and you may know a lot about "things" but that doesn't mean you actually "KNOW". Knowing about and knowing are very different.
@iamlumin Know what though? What is this nameless thing/unthing you want me to know about? Please elaborate. I don't see how I'm being in any way dualistic. I just said you need objectivity to establish common ground. You can't just say I'm dualistic without showing how I'm being dualistic. I merely prefer objectivity. You don't seem to.
@gariadara You must know that for yourself. In fact, even within the fictional paradigm you seem to cling to you can only "know" yourself. If you only appear to know what you have read or heard someone else said, that doesn't mean you actually know for yourself. You "believe" and that's quite different. For human beings everything is what you believe and if you don't believe that then . . .
@iamlumin And again...that God complex. Don't forget that. Talk to any over-patriotic commie Chinese and they'll think they created the Universe and therefore may do anything to anyone in it.
@gariadara Again, one would only cling to a so-called God complex because of a deep insecurity, sense of inherent inferiority and yes, they're like scared little children in their heart of hearts.
@iamlumin perhaps it was all rooted in fear at some point...like in the bronze age, I'm sure all great civilizations rose to power out of the desire to protect their own, so they built weapons, cities, walls, etc. But when you get to a civilization's zenith, when you're THAT powerful...like the US-especially before 9/11-how can there possibly be fear and insecurity? Americans honestly thought they could do anything or not do anything and be fine. Their military might provided them with security.
@gariadara Naturally, different time periods had different environments, different things going on. Humans generally out of fear seek to control what they don't understand, they don't understand much and thus seek a lot of control and failing to understand, having control is difficult at best and thus destruction and domination the result.
@iamlumin I agree with you. That's how wars begin. But we're talking about conquest here, not war. I can believe that Rome started out fearing its neighboring tribes therefore made advances to ensure it being on top....like US and USSR during the Cold War...both feared the other. But neither countries feared...say...Nepal, you know what I mean? When Rome got out of being small and grew big, really big, like China did, it forgot to be afraid, which ultimately became its downfall (China's too).
@gariadara Regarding Americans it's hard to make wide sweeping generalizations. I would say that's America's need for weapons and military might is rooted in fear and insecurity. I would also say that's embedded in the American paradigm in that the country was founded on the heavy use of force and Americans tend to use and abuse force in order to achieve their goals.
Not true. If you're talking about the Cold War, yes, we feared the Soviets. But that's only because they were just as powerful. America had no insecurities before WWII, not really. We did not even want to get involved. But our advances were too great at that time already. People sometimes build things and create technology not out of fear but because they just want to build things. The Manhattan Project was a reaction to Axis aggression, which was self-defense, not this insecurity you speak of.
@gariadara Who's "we"? I never feared the Soviets. Whether you believe is or not the first act of war is actually defense. Think about iit. There is no war until one engages.
@iamlumin I'm American. My country's leaders feared the Communists and embraced McCarthyism if you recall. I don't know what your point is about the first act of war....The Manhattan Project would not have come to fruition if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor first....I hope you're not implying the US was the aggressor in WWII.
@gariadara It goes much deeper than that. This is my point. War always leads to another war. If mankind maintains the same formula as it has, it will go extinct. There's really no doubt about it. The Manhattan Project was one reaction there could have been another approach. If Tibetans engaged the Chinese there'd be daily suicide bombings in Tibet on a daily basis. They're trying to do something unusual, they're trying a non-violent approach and this of course, is in conflict with the status quo
@iamlumin What "other approach?" Sit back and say "please stop?" The USA's involvement ENDED WWII. It did not start another war. If homeless people invade your property, hit your children, eat your food and sleep in your house without permission...and raped your wife. Will you say "please stop?" No. You would kick them out by force at that point. Not all violent reactions are bad. It is not the character of Tibetans to bomb people, that's simply not within their cultural mindset.
@gariadara Who's says so? It's like a children's game where one pushes down one pin while another pop ups somewhere else. Looks unrelated but they are connected. Your ex. is silly, of course, you'd do what you had to do to protect yourself. Please don't define our cultural mind set. When the Dalai Lama is gone many Tibetans are prepared to change as they are being taught by the Chinese example that violence, oppression & domination are the solution.
@iamlumin What children's game? Exactly, you'd do whatever to protect yourself, and that has as much to do with bravery as fear. Know a compliment when you see it. Sheesh. Tibetans are not the same as war-like Arabic terrorists. Your culture and mindset has already been defined by yourselves, and it's not a violent one, GENERALLY speaking.
@gariadara It's not a violent one because it was developed over hundreds of years to not be a violent one. Of course, the world at large is much more accepting of a violent approach because more often than not is aligns with their own.
@iamlumin I only brought up the self-defense scenario after you suggested Americans should have taken a "different approach" to defend itself after Pearl Harbor. If your enemy is strong, you try to get stronger. It's the only way to win for sure. So, we developed a more powerful weapon. I agree we went overboard with it...becoming the "destroyer of worlds."
@gariadara I didn't say they should have I said they could have taken a different approach. No one knows what would have happen in that case. I do know that we still live in a paradigm where killing, bombing and murder seems to be manner in which man attempts to solve things and it has limited effectiveness and eventually may lead to man's absence entirely.
@iamlumin You're begging the question. You're essentially removing the specific context upon which one can apply usage of the terms "better" or "worse," therefore completely avoiding the argument. It's like if I'm asking you which is better: wireless mouse or mouse with a cable...and you answer with: computers are not important. When I ask you if guns are better weapons, you answer by saying "weapons are bad." Sure enough. But that's an answer to a different question.
@gariadara Who's arguing? Not I. If you're interested in arguing and embracing duality, and thus opposition then perhaps you will have to seek elsewhere. Every "thing" and every "one" in this dualistic game will come to pass. There is no "isness" to any of it so I have no worries over that which is inherently fiction.
Suffering is wanting things to be different than they are or at least the way you think they are.
@iamlumin An "argument" is not "arguing." You misunderstand. English isn't your first language, I assume. In the field of study of logic, an "argument" is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the PREMISES along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the CONCLUSION. When I said you avoided the argument, it meant you avoided responding to the declaration.
@gariadara I'm not avoiding & I understand your argument. You are swimming in deep dualistic waters. At the end of the day you are building your argument for a reason & that reason involves "otherness" & duality and thus there is no end to the number of opinions and arguments that can be organized and put forth by humans. Does your argument have any meaning other than the meaning you say it has or the meaning you "believe" it has. I have no arugment. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
@iamlumin You made an argument when you DECLARED that nations expand due to fear and provided a PREMISE that the fear is rooted in the need to control. That is an argument. I was responding to that argument. I don't swim in dualism. You said fear drives everything a nation does, I disagreed and provided reasons, for us both to contemplate.
@gariadara It's not an argument. From my perspective it's a simple observation. You don't have to accept or believe it. I see it. I know it with certitude. It's not based on reasoning, facts and figures. It's much a much deeper level of perceiving.
@iamlumin how can you improve yourself and your knowledge if you're 100% sure about something and do not question your own judgment? Ever? An observation does not include conclusions. You made a declaration and a conclusion, which together defines a logical argument.
@gariadara Improve yourself to what end and in what way? You will have the same destination as everyone else. It's a balance, work on your knowledge of "self" and not so much your knowledge of things. Knowing is quite different than knowing about. Most people know about things and really "know" very little. Reading hundreds of books, all you're reading is someone else's opinion and viewpoint on "things", that doesn't make it so.
@iamlumin Improve yourself in exactly the way you describe here. If you do not question your own judgment, how do you know when you've made a mistake? Or are you infallible?
You haven't answered to "Efficiency (fast or slow) and Genuineness are two VERY DIFFERENT topics."
@gariadara Why would you love to see a response to thatt, so you can add to your already preconceived beliefs about who I am, what I'm about and what I know or don't know?
@iamlumin "Why would you love to see a response to thatt, so you can add to your already preconceived beliefs about who I am, what I'm about and what I know or don't know?"
@gariadara Wireless mouse may not be better is you continuously have connection problems and are stuck replacing batteries too often. I never said computers are not important. I said there are those who consider them unimportant and that's a fact. I never said weapons are bad. In reality nothing is good or bad. These are labels that humans place on things and often they find out what they thought was good was actually bad and what they thought was bad was actually good, at least to them.
@iamlumin "The gun is better than the dagger if you have a vested interest in killing more people"
You're implying here that it is bad. Also, when I said internet creates faster communication, you answered by saying: some people could care less about internet, therefore dodging my declaration. I was merely pointing out your habit.
@gariadara You "believe" that's what I'm implying. I implied no such thing. Faster communication. It can be argued as you say, that there is very little geniune communication taking place over the internet or on cell phones for all that matters. The habit you say I have. Amazing, you know my habits but no nothing about me. It's true that some people could care less aobut the internet. You simply want opposition.
@iamlumin When you say "guns kill people" what else am I suppose to infer? I know you're Tibetan. That you have a strong dislike of the CCP's politics. And you have a tendency to beg the question. You see, I was declaring that the internet provides faster communication, and you went to bring up genuine communication which is a different topic. You keep on bringing up a different topic every time I declare something.
@gariadara I have no dislike for the CCP. Communication is communication. You're communicating or you're not. It's not a different topic. I have no dislike for anyone. I don't argue with the way things seem to be and thus even the CCP is accepted and dealth with from what "I" consider to be a healthier perspective. If i hated them or was angry with them all the time it would likely do me more harm than them.
@iamlumin There are many aspects of communication. Efficiency (fast or slow) and Genuineness are two VERY DIFFERENT topics. And don't lie about disliking the CCP. If you liked them you wouldn't have said half the things you wrote here.
@gariadara Okay, I'm done with you. I'm not lying and have no need or motivation to do so. I hold no hatred or anger in my heart toward anyone, anywhere.
@gariadara Okay, I'm done with you. I'm not lying and have no need or motivation to do so. I hold no hatred or anger in my heart toward anyone, anywhere. You simply must move on and get over it. You appear to think you're very smart. I simply ask that you stop, get very still and ask yourself, "what do I really know for sure" what do I know is absolutely true" and if you're honest you'll get it. If the ego is too strong then forget it and enjoy the ride you're on.
So you made a bunch of declarations that you cannot defend and now you exit with self-appearance of spiritual superiority. yes, I'm totally the one with the stronger ego here.
@gariadara I never said you have to agree or disagree with anything I've said. I simply made a statement based upon observation, direct experience and first hand knowledge. I never said you had to agree. You turned into a whole conversation about logic, etc, etc, etc, The video is about Tibet, I'm from Tibet, that's all.
@gariadara Again, feel free to comment, agree and/or disagree all you like. The inherent nature of reality remains unchanged, unaltered, etc. Perhaps it's part of my Tibetan heritage, perhaps it's simply a matter of being present. In any case, I never argue with how things appear understanding the underlying nature. If I was to get caught up in the ebb and flow of appearances I sense it would be futile.
@gariadara One can comment on a point without agreeing or disagreeing, it's not automatic. Perhaps one is introducing a perspective that transcends dualy, or maybe one is simply suggesting there may be another approach or way to look at something in a different context. In other words, they are not agreeing or disagreeing, simply putting out the possibility that there may be yet another approach.
@iamlumin How's that different from disagreeing? one wouldn't suggest different approaches unless there is something inadequate with the stated approach. And to point out inadequacies is to voice a disagreement. You make no sense.
@gariadara Again you're stuck in a dualistic game, good vs bad, right vs wrong, agreeing vs disagreeing. I have no interest in this game. Pointing out different approaches does not suggest inadequacies. It simply suggest that there may be other ways to look at something. I make no sense to someone like yourself who can't comprehend what they have yet to realize themselves. So be it.
@iamlumin Then there'd be no reason to point out different approaches because if none stands out among the others, then they might as well all be the same approach, therefore what's the point of suggesting anything? It's as moot as CocaCola vs Pepsi.
@gariadara If one already has a fixed idea of how it is then one lives in limitation. To be open to a variety of approaches just reveals that there are other possibilities. What stands out for one person may not stand out for another. If no one suggested there are options available other than Coke & Pepsi then we'd be stuck in the limited soft drink paradigm of Coke & Pepsi only. It's not that Dr. Pepper or Mountain Dew are better, just another option that one has the freedom to explore.
@iamlumin "To be open to a variety of approaches just reveals that there are other possibilities. What stands out for one person may not stand out for another."
Exactly. And the process of declaring, concluding, disagreeing and agreeing all work together to establish this variety. However you're now talking about something a bit different than what I was talking about. I was saying that coke and pepsi are "different approaches" but arrive at the same thing cus neither one is better.
@gariadara That's not a matter of declaring, concluding, agree or disagreeing.
I wasn't pointing out that one may simply find themselves selecting one thing in one moment and something completely different in the next. This doesn't me one disagrees, agrees, declares or concludes anything to anyone else or for anyone else. One simply makes a
@iamlumin I'm not talking about joy or personal tastes. I've been trying to leave out emotional factors in our current discussion about "duality." I'm sure it may be more "joyful" for person A use to Birch wood because maybe he is fond of them because his mom played with him in a birch forest when he was little.....but that has absolutely nothing to do with the practical making of paper and in the end isn't something that will matter (the the paper making process overall).
@iamlumin@iamlumin I'm not talking about joy or personal tastes. I've been trying to leave out emotional factors in our current discussion about "duality." I'm sure it may be more "joyful" for person A use to Birch wood because maybe he is fond of them because his mom played with him in a birch forest when he was little.....but that has absolutely nothing to do with the practical making of paper and in the end isn't something that will matter (the the paper making process overall).
@iamlumin Wants have little to do with indications. I'm a doctor, patients want things all the time that they don't need. I can't just give it to them without establishing medical necessity.
@iamlumin You understand the concept of context...obviously since you keep knocking me over and over with the importance of different contexts. In my example, I was a doctor. My patient has no pain. But he wants pain meds. Medically, there is no indication. there is only one interpretation of that situation. Let's take another example: mathematics. There are different ways to solve a problem but the number of ways are not infinite. there are a handful and they are the same across the universe.
@iamlumin Dr. Pepper has a "better" cherry taste than Coke. Mountain Dew has "more" of a lime taste than Dr. Pepper. When I use the terms "better" or "worse" that's how I'm using them. It doesn't mean I'm restricting to dualism but duality is in everything. Yin and Yang are always distinguishable in all things, but they are also always together in all things. One cannot exist without the other. And in fact they are One.
@gariadara It has a better cherry taste to "you" than Coke and Mountain Dew has more of a lime taste than Dr. Peper to "you". So what? Again, Yin and Yang, stuck in duality forever. "They" are "One" is a silly statement. Again, from my perspective. If "they" are one then there is only one and there is no "they" to discuss.
@iamlumin "It has a better cherry taste to "you" than Coke and Mountain Dew has more of a lime taste than Dr. Peper to "you"."
Oh come on. You're telling me you taste Lime in Dr. Pepper? Do you taste chocolate in salted pork too? We are all the same species, sure there is relativity in perception but if is indeed THAT different across everybody it'd be impossible to be social animals...cus then no one would be able to have common ground with anyone else.
@gariadara Perceptions can be very different and so can the level of importance individuals place on any given situation. What would happen if people were completely and I mean completely honest with each other 24./7? The social relationships may look very different.
@gariadara Now if one already thinks they have all the answers then you're right there is little point in anyone making suggestions to them or for one to post on the web, other than to flaunt ones own sense of rightness and expand ones ballooning ego.
@iamlumin Person A: Oak trees make good paper, but I suggest birch. Person B: Why? Is birch better? Person A: No. Person B: Cheaper? Person A: No. Person B: Easier to procure or find? Person A: Not really. Person B: Smells good? Person A: Smells like paper. Person B: Do we live closer to some birch? Person A: Yes, but we live close to some oak too. Person B: ... I'm confused ...
@iamlumin "Person: C - Why don't you Person A use the trees you want to use to"
That's exactly my point. Thank you! Because it doesn't matter which tree anyone uses, since the different approach isn't more or less "adequate" than the other. It's stupid for Person A to suggest using Birch to Person B at all. Now if Birch is EASIER to obtain, then and only then would it be LOGICAL to suggest it to Person B, since that approach would now be MORE adequate.
@iamlumin It makes no sense because it isn't logical what you said. There CANNOT be a reason for needing to look at something a different way unless there are benefits in doing so which otherwise could not be obtained from the initial perspective. It is important to recognize reality in all its perfections and its flaws, in doing so better understanding the world. If you believe in what you preach, I invite you to contemplate my perspective.
@gariadara No, it makes no sense to you. Everything doesn't need a reason from my perspective.It's now logical to "you". Now what are you calling "reality" and how are you defining "reality" would be the
@iamlumin Reality is the objective observable world around us. Logic is universal. It exists whether or not the universe exists or not. Because it is math, and math isn't subjective dude.
@gariadara Is that right? In the so-called observable world from a human perspective one is always dealing with "that wich isn't anymore" or "that which isn't yet" and never with that which IS. Indeed, time would be that point when it is not now. When is not now? Tell me.
@gariadara The point is that you should perhaps reread the post. The observable world from a human perpective has nothing to do with "reality". It's arriving and leaving and is never NOW, it never just IS. Duality is a fiction. That's my last word on the subject. Good luck!
@iamlumin yes I know all about the limitations of human perception yada yada yada... But we have machines and computers now to assess reality for us. Scientists take samples, dude. They made medications. Which (gasp) works! Well most of them. Which means our perception is okay. Duality is fiction. I know what you're trying to say, because duality only exists in relation to something. I'm tall, you're short (but only because I'm tall).
@gariadara Scientists study the world of effects and finite phenomena. Machines and computers access reality. That's funny. Scientist make medications that work, that's debatable and in many circles it is debated. That's not what I'm saying about duality. honestly, there is no "isnness" to the dualistic paradigm that seems to appear. It's always coming & going, or coming, never "being". Only being is being. Science never solves a problem without creating ten more. George Bernard Shaw
@iamlumin Right...I really don't know what you're talking about. Earth to iamlumin, come back down from the astral plane. Okay, lame joke. I was talking in terms of mundane practicality. If you want to talk spirituality, fine. I'm not interested in that at all. Of course medicine is debated. It's the only way to improve the field. In fact, that how most fields progress.
@iamlumin I'm not thinking I'm right.....there happen to be a billion people who agree with me on that...about the prime numbers. Prime numbers are integers that are only divisible by themselves and 1..... is there a reason why you would believe that integers do not exist somewhere else in the universe?
@gariadara So there we have it. It's about being right? Thank you for solidifying my point. In the absence of words, labels, man made concepts, there is no such thing as a number, as quantity. So many people live clinging to that which is finite. They live the mantra, I am more because I have more, I am more because I know more, I am more because I've done more. It's all complete bullshit. Infinity is changeless reality and there is no co-existing with infinite presense.
@gariadara Okay, that's untrue. As the word and number "9" or "nine" would have no existence at all. At a certain point the intellect is a barrier to knowingness. Again, a person can seeming know a lot about things and actually "know" very little.
@iamlumin "Okay, that's untrue. As the word and number "9" or "nine" would have no existence at all."
The WORD wouldn't exist, but the planets still would. Words are tools we made to give things names, but it doesn't mean the things aren't there before I named them. My daughter Sophie existed before I named her . The existence of the universe and the 9 planets does not depend on us nor does it require us to name them. If humans go extinct, would the universe disappear?
@gariadara That which exist is real, that which exist IS. Every "thing" your talking about falls into the catagory of that which IS NOT YET or that which IS NOT ANYMORE and never does it fall into the catagory of THAT WHICH IS. The oberservable world perceived through the so-called human sense is fictional and does not exist, is not actual, is not real or reality. So the planets would be part of that and have no ISNESS at all.
haha, what a joke. I understand the concept of the virtual universe mate. You're trying to say that our perception of the real thing is only an image. Well duh. Tell me something we don't already know. The image of the nine planets are generated from the reality of the nine planets. If our perception is so unreliable, nothing would be able to function in this world. You drink water don't you? well it's quite real. Without it you die. water is not fictional.
@gariadara Who's talking about virtural universe. I'm pointing to that which is not a concept not the concept of a virtual universe. Forms appear to die, life never dies, being that life has no beginning and no end. Mate! Again, you know it all, you're right and I have already said so be it but you're such a colossal blow hard that you simply cannot stop yourself from continuing on, and thus I will stop for you so you can start up your meaningless rant with someone else.
@iamlumin In fact the reason why we counted 9 planets was because there were 9 distinct things up there to be counted in the first place. Without these individual things that have existed before us to prompt us of their existence we wouldn't have come up with the term "9 planets" now would we? If another alien species traveled here they'd count 9 planets too in their own alien language.
@gariadara Or maybe they'd call that one eubock, I don't know. Whatever, they might have an entirely different system of identifying and counting. Scientist discover and work with relative facts, and declare it a fact, that is until they find out they were wrong and come up with a new "fact" and then years later find out that was wrong and . . .
@iamlumin "entirely different system of identifying and counting."
Sure but ask yourself this: how come mathematics across ancient civilizations that have no contact with one another all eventually arrive at the same set of rules? Could it be because these rules were written into the very fabric of existence itself? And that we're not making them up in our heads but discovering them? If it's fictional, counting wouldn't help you and typing on your keyboard is meaningless because I'm not real.
@gariadara I never said there's any big meaning to any of this, you did. You seem to think you're actually in control of everything. Do you breath yourself? Will you decide when the body stops breathing? Do you decide in advance what thoughts you will have tomorrow or even 5 minutes from now? You have thoughts and the ones you believe in become incorporated into your fictional identity and then you spend your days defending your stories that you now wholeheartedly believe.
@iamlumin "Do you breath yourself? Will you decide when the body stops breathing? Do you decide in advance what thoughts you will have tomorrow or even 5 minutes from now?"
uh....yeah? I have a voluntary motor system, it can stop or start my breathing on my will. It's how people, you know, swim......what are you smoking? sheesh.
@gariadara So you personally and consciously decide what thoughts to have and when you'll have them?? In addition, you know exactly when your body will stop breathing? Obviously, you're doing more than smoking something. You don't even know what's going to happen in the next 5 minutes never mind the next day or year. The moment you think you have a plan and you know it all, life will send you a reminder.
@iamlumin Of course not everything is within my control. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. But to say I don't know when I start and stop breathing is stupid. So you don't plan ahead just because you can't control the universe? What's the point of having free will then? You can't control your typing on your keyboard to answer my comments? You could and you did, despite that possibly that the Sun could have exploded while you were typing.
@gariadara It's not stupid it's a fact. The day you stop breathing for good, you have no idea when that will happen. You have no idea what thoughts you'll have when you wake up tomorrow morning. That's a fact. I'm not claiming to control everything so the typing happens or it doesn't. The thought may arise that says there's no point in responding or it may not. I don't control that. I'm not stupid and egotistical enough to think that I do.
@iamlumin You don't have control over your own thoughts? that explains a lot....
What I mean is that people have will. We all have volition. And we CAN control our volition. Our desires are a bit harder to control. Our subconscious near impossible. But our superegos, the part where thinking occurs, we most certainly do control. Random thoughts in the morning are due to a voluntary relinquishment of control. It's not egotistical to think you wanted to type and you typed.
@gariadara Superegos, egos, it's all semantics, simply labels. So you control your thinking, when you think and what you'll think about? You know what you're going to be thinking about let's say 2 hours from now? And when you suddenly die when you least expect it, in that moment is that your will? It's an illusion to think you're "personally" controlling much at all. People like to "think" this because they live in fear. The idea they have control seems to dissipate that fear a bit.
Of course I can't predict the future. I can only control me, not outside environments. I plan to cook dinner in 2 hours. And in 2 hours I will most likely be thinking about ingredients. I'm 26. Healthy. I live in a very safe neighborhood in California. Sure there is a billion things that can kill me in 2 hours. But right now, I'm guessing the likelihood is less. I never said I thought I can control much of what happens to me. What I can control is my own thoughts and how I react to a situation.
@gariadara So you still believe you control your thoughts? When you'll have them and what they will be. Good luck with that. You're in for some big surprises.
@iamlumin Of course I can control my thoughts. It's the world around me I can't control. I've already said that. I can and I am comfortable with HOW I REACT to unpredictable things. Surprises are only scary when you can't trust your own judgment. I'm sure anything can happen. My husband may die of cancer, my kids may be kidnapped, an asteroid may fall on the earth. What use is thinking about these things?
@iamlumin In the absence of evidence, it is not logical to assume something exists. I think a blue giant frog with red hair that speaks Spanish lives on the moon. Well it's possible. I can't prove that no one has seen it. But that's pointless because anything that anyone can think of can be deemed to possibly exist, from Tinkerbell to Neytiri. It's no different than the flying spaghetti monster. So no, until we have proof it's ridiculous to suppose other universes exist.
@iamlumin I'm not saying no one knows. I'm saying there is no reason for me to believe anyone knows. If someone thinks they discovered something it is up to that person to show it to the rest of us, no? But before he does show it, why would I believe that it would exist?
@iamlumin knowing about differences in perception between people is useful to take into account the small margin of variation across different people's perceptions. But to say that it is fictional is preposterous. Independent individuals have all saw and verified 9 planets in different languages. Which strongly indicates that our human sense's accuracy is adequate, since natural phenomena can be independently verified.
@gariadara In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper. It is all symbolic, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. ... The frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances.
@iamlumin yes well that is moot as the "shadow" is cast by something. And that something surely exists. Frogs would still dance in dew circles and eat insects after we're extinct. Or are you so anthrocentric that your actually believe in some sort of virtual universe?
@gariadara Of course, you know more than a well know physicist. I would trying to say that even within your fictional dualistic limited paradigm scientist admit and physicist admit that what is observable is 99.999999…. empty space and they don't know, they really don't know.
@iamlumin I don't know more. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions from what that "famous physicist" said. He said our perception is a shadow of reality. Which only means that it's not quite the real thing, but the real thing's effect is certainly felt, and can be measured and its future actions can be predicted. scientists accurately predict things all the time. how do you explain the ability to do that if our "shadow" perception is completely fictional and thus unreliable as you say?
@gariadara He didn't say it's a shadow of our reality. "We" do nothing as in reality there is no "we". There is no absolute separation. any sane scientist will tell you their are really no individuals at all. There is no separation, no "we" no "us". etc. When you see it for yourself you'll stop defending your ego based positions. There's just reality and reality is infinity and not even that. The best that can be said in language is, that which IS, is all there IS. Good luck!
@iamlumin No, you're the one claiming to know how things worked. Not me. It is you who declares there is no "we" no "us" and that reality is "infinity." Isn't it ironic that you claim to know that for sure while chiding me for being skeptical?
@iamlumin Even if I go to another universe, as long as I have my brain, I can still do division and I will still be able to calculate prime numbers.....numbers don't depend on the physical world.
@gariadara Again, in the absence of man made concepts, words, labels, concepts, etc numbers have no meaning at all. What is a billion of anything next to infinity? Nothing, powerless, meaningless. These concepts only have the meaning you believe they have, and the more people you get to agree the more true they seem to be. However, that doesn not make them true. The most stubborn clinging to a falsehood, a fiction, does not make it any less a fiction.
@iamlumin Bottom line: remember logic is universal, the first 5 prime numbers are 2 3 5 7 11 everywhere in the universe (except for maybe in a naked singularity)
@gariadara Please don't tell me what to remember or not remember. "the first 5 prime numbers are 2 3 5 7 11 everywhere in the universe (except for maybe in a naked singularity)" Really? So you've been everywhere in the universe? And I suppose to you there is only this one universe of which you speak? Infinity is reality and infinity is non-numerical. Again, from the way "I" see it. You are free to see it the way you do. I have no problem with that.
@iamlumin "Really? So you've been everywhere in the universe?"
Mathematics don't change according to location. Numbers are independent of the universe. It's the other way around, the universe is built on math. Otherwise there'd be no way to send people to the moon. I haven't seen other universes. No one has. So it's ridiculous to assume anything about that. How are you defining infinity? Mathematically? The observable universe is quite finite.
@gariadara "I haven't seen other universes. No one has." How do you know? In other words, how did you find out that know one has? Infinity is reality. That which IS is all there IS and that which IS is not a "was" or a "will be". Reality is NOW!
@iamlumin How do YOU know all that? I don't speculate on what is possible, that brings nothing but philosophizing because anything is possible. I'm not in the habit of having dinner with the flying spaghetti monster (aka alternate universes). I only contemplate on what is observable. If someone has seen other universes, well the burden of proof is on them.
@gariadara The idea of proving things often requires that you prove it to yourself. Until a person knows at a very deep level. they are simply believers in how another sees, interprets and reports on things. Note:The human senses are often flawed when contemplating the observable, for ex, a pencil in a glass of water looks bent, A person sees this and knows the pencil is straight so doesn't buy into it. But how many other things in the observable world are "bent" that they're maybe not aware of?
@iamlumin that's why in science, we have a system in which many independent parties verify things for thousands of times. But my point wasn't about proof but about suggestion. It is fruitless to suggest things exist that we simply cannot perceive.
@gariadara I said I was done and you're right about it all and you still continue on. Wow! You still don't get it anyway and it's okay a person can't comprehend what they have failed to already realize on their own.
@iamlumin You're right, not everything needs a reason. But the things we have been talking about do. There is a reason why people invented the airplane: namely to get to places faster. Now of course that only matters to people who want to get to places faster but the point is it matters to those specific people. And people's needs change so it's nice to keep options open, just sayin'
@gariadara Again, just sayin' what's "better" to one isn't always "better" to another. Getting somewhere faster may be of total unimportance a certain people and to others it may be very important. Inherently on its own it's not "better" to be faster.
@iamlumin Dude I understand that. I've already said in my post that faster is only important to people who need to get someplace fast. the terms "better" and "worse" CANNOT apply without a specific goal and context, mate. Don't tell you weren't aware that I knew that all this time. Fast is only better with the specific goal of needing to be somewhere fast.
@gariadara Listen you seem to think you already know it all and are attempting to use the intellect to validate your preconcieved notions. So be it. I already said, move on, you're right about eveyrthing. Feel better? I suspect not.
@iamlumin I don't it all. I know logic. Let's not talk about me but get back on topic, shall we? Afterall, I 'm not the subject of discussion, the concepts of duality and taking various perspectives are
yak in the box !!!
sandeshman 3 months ago
But if it turns out that there is a God or that spirits do exist. I can accept that. I have no problems with such things. I just do not believe in the soul unless there is evidence that suggests so.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Infinity being all there really IS has no reason to prove and no "otherness" to prove its existence to. Being infinity there is no room for another presence besides infinity itself. By the way, once someone seemingly proves the existence of anything labeled as spiritual such as god, reality, infinity, actuality, whatever term you choose to use, then it would be reduced down to a concept and a concept is contained and limited by its very nature. In essence, that which IS is ineffable,
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin No, I mean life OBJECTIVELY, as in the way EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST defines it. MEasurable, observable, life. Cells, DNA, molecules, the things that enable life to exist. Without these living things to manifest life, there can be no life in any objective sense. Let's stick to objectivity please. How else can you define life objectively without talking about biological life? Spirituality is SUBJECTIVE and is different from person to person, again, I'm NOT interested in subjectivity.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Scientist study phenomena, within a finite context and thus infinity is not within their scope of understanding and never will be. Let's not talk about it at all. Again, you're stuck in a right / wrong paradigm and truth which is reality has no opposite, no opposition, no duality. Opposition is inherent to duality. For every person with an opinion like yours there are hundreds more with conflicting opinions, all arriving nowhere.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "For every person with an opinion like yours there are hundreds more with conflicting opinions, all arriving nowhere."
That the universe is finite is not an opinion. I have always been talking about natural phenomena. IT is you who want to talk about supernatural things. I have no belief in nor do I care about spirituality.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara To you it's supernatural. I never said it was supernatural. Reality is the most natural as it is all there is and it is infinity and not even that.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin No it is not infinitesimal. Infinitesimal means an indefinitely small quantity; a value approaching zero.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin infinity and infinitesimals are related. They are in the same class. Immeasurable quantities.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Infinity is not a immeasurable quatity it has nothing to do with quantity. If you are infinity there is no need for measurement as there is nothing to measure yourself against. Listen evidently you "think" you already know it all and most of what you think you know is based upon what someone else thought they knew. Good luck with that. It's all good.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin What? Infinity means no limit, right? how do you know that infinity has nothing to do with quantity? do YOU know it all? you certainly sounds like it.
gariadara 1 year ago
look at what you wrote. You're more dualistic & contradictory than Taoism. And you don't see the irony. I try to establish common ground by asking for objectivity. You did everything you could to avoid talking about objective things while claiming that what you know is "FACT." You insulted my maturity. You implied superiority in experience by saying I don't see what you see. In the end you haven't spoken one meaningful thing. If that is how I'll end up "knowing" "infinity," no thanks.
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin SCientists understand infinity more than you can even explain to me what it means to you. Ever heard of Stephen Hawking's time and anti-time theory?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara . In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper. It is all symbolic, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. ... The frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Eddington is talking about the margin of error that exists across perception. Just because we see images of the real thing doesn't mean the real thing isn't there. Heck it HAS to be there to cast a shadow (I've said this before).
And look up Stephen Hawking's book : A History of Time.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I'm already aware of Stephen Hawking's and his books. Take your head out of your intellectual ass and open your eyes. You just might get a glimpse of reality. Now, I"m moving on. Best of luck with your fixed ideas.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin You keep telling me to open my eyes. Yet you don't tell me what you're trying to let me see. You claim that if I don't already see it there is no use telling me. You insinuate that I am blind compared to you. You are better than me. Great. Kudos to you. You post the same quote from the same scientist twice, all you do is repeat in circles and circles about infinity and reality but you don't define them for me and you have the nerve to say that the one with fixed ideas is me. Laughable
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin you say you are well aware of Stephen Hawking's books , yet you made the statement that no scientist could even understand the concept of infinity, well maybe infinity in how YOU define it.
I'm sure your mind is important enough for Hawking to bother developing telepathy so he can decipher your unwilling-to-define-anything-and-thus-can't-have-meaningful-discourse brain.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Who's tying to explain anything to you? A personal cannot comprehend what they have failed to realize on their own. If you're comfortable with your ever changing facts, figures and masses of data then so enjoy. I really have not a care about it.
iamlumin 1 year ago
Not all scientific facts change. There are things that exhibit much variation, and there are other things that do not. When scientists develop newer better methods to record data, the better data will of course take the place of the old data. IT doesn't mean things are "changing" or that data is necessarily unreliable. Think about the telescope. In the 19th century, telescopes are not very advanced and don't see very clearly. Now we have Hubble. But we see the same stars, just clearer.
gariadara 1 year ago
How are you defining infinity? Nothing SO FAR has been OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED to be infinite. I repeat: NOTHING. The Universe (the observable universe, that is) has a DEFINITE VOLUME as measured by scientists all across the world. Infinity is a concept, a mathematical and philosophical and theoretical one. It only exists in math and in our heads. However, infinity is also in everything in the sense that you can always reduce the scale of your point of view to ever smaller sizes.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Personally I'm not defining it. Infinity is not a thing, an object, a concept. That which is infinity is not the word infinity. The word is simply a pointer. Infinity is actually non-numerical. Infinity is not a very large finity no more than now is a moment between a past and a future. Now is timeless.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Of course infinity is non-numerical. Even in math, they teach you about "non-numbers." Math doesn't mean numbers dude. Numbers are just part of the discipline of math. Infinity is not a Real Number, it's an Infinitesimal.
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin You may define life in your own way. But you can't talk about it in your own way with a bunch of scientists, atheists, people from all around the world and have a meaningful discussion without defining a common ground. There is only one common ground regarding this topic between all these different people and that is biology. In biology, life on earth began roughly 4.5 billion years ago. Now THAT is a fact. Verified, studied, and published.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Really, that's a fact? That's very funny. Please, where you there? Verified, studied and published, really? Every so-called fact you're speaking of is open to debate by other scientist. So you're saying there was no life prior to life appearing 4.5 billion years ago, wow. And what time was it when this happened considering the concept of time did not exist and the concept of a billion did not exist? And on what playing field and in what environment did this so-called life appear?
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Do you know what geology is? What about carbon dating? If you don't know about these things, please go and do some research before coming back. I wasn't "there." But the slab of sediment the trilobite fossil got buried in was. Time is not a concept. It is a temporal dimension that is measurable. What time? 4.5 billion revolutions of the earth around the sun ago. A year is simply a full revolution of the earth around the sun.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara So now you're feeling threatened as you're beginning to attack. Go and do some research, please, I forgot more than you'll ever know about life and the manifestations of life. All of which you speak is simply agreements, labels, and by the way, open to a lot of interpretation. This is proved by the fact that every so often a scientist will come out and annouce that what they thought was fact is now being replaced with a new fact. Of course, until that changes.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "This is proved by the fact that every so often a scientist will come out and annouce that what they thought was fact is now being replaced with a new fact. Of course, until that changes."
That has nothing to do with interpretation but improving methods of observation and experimentation. Science is THE most unbiased field. The reason old facts get over-turned sometimes is because we the scientists always try to better our understanding, and with newer methods we rethink things.
gariadara 1 year ago
Life has no beginning and no end? did your religious myths tell you that? or are you God so you "know it all?" life certainly has a beginning. It did not exist before the earth and the earth didn't exist till 5 billion years ago. Learn some geological history, you may one day not sound like a babbling superstitious fool. And please don't tell me you're talking about the soul. There is no evidence such a thing exists. Adios.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Are you talking about life or life forms? There is a difference. You're not equiped to have this conversation so adios to you!
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin There is no difference biologically speaking. I'm talking about life forms, before which there could not have been life. It seems YOU are talking about some mysterious spiritual "life force" that had existed before proteins and cells. I do not believe in spirits. I don't think the soul exists. I think when we die, we rot and become the soil. I don't think there is any purpose or meaning to existence. I don't think there is anything beyond the material universe.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara There could not have been life? You mean life in the way 'you" define it. Even the best physicist will tell you there really is no material universe. It's 99.99999999…. empty space.So your own paradigm refutes your own belief. Stop thinking so much and you might just see reality for what it IS.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin A physicist will tell you the universe is mostly empty space, that is correct. But no one will tell you there is no material universe. That's laughable. There is material in space, a whole lot of it. And it is measurable. That's how we found out about how little matter there is IN RELATION to space. But the matter is most certainly there. Space is part of the physical universe, it is a spacial dimension and at the quantum level, particles pop in and out of existence constantly.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara You're stuck in an intellectual paradigm rooted in duality and thus this discussion is pointless. You "think" you know and you may know a lot about "things" but that doesn't mean you actually "KNOW". Knowing about and knowing are very different.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Know what though? What is this nameless thing/unthing you want me to know about? Please elaborate. I don't see how I'm being in any way dualistic. I just said you need objectivity to establish common ground. You can't just say I'm dualistic without showing how I'm being dualistic. I merely prefer objectivity. You don't seem to.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara You must know that for yourself. In fact, even within the fictional paradigm you seem to cling to you can only "know" yourself. If you only appear to know what you have read or heard someone else said, that doesn't mean you actually know for yourself. You "believe" and that's quite different. For human beings everything is what you believe and if you don't believe that then . . .
iamlumin 1 year ago
lol "can I get a heineken"
MountAnalogue 1 year ago
every one has freedom to criticize, but do you have the guts to criticize govt of china in china...?
multitse 2 years ago
Yes! Sure! They're all a bunch of criminals. Thieves, liars, murderers, revisionist, a godless group of the lowest of the low. Need more?
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin And again...that God complex. Don't forget that. Talk to any over-patriotic commie Chinese and they'll think they created the Universe and therefore may do anything to anyone in it.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Again, one would only cling to a so-called God complex because of a deep insecurity, sense of inherent inferiority and yes, they're like scared little children in their heart of hearts.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin perhaps it was all rooted in fear at some point...like in the bronze age, I'm sure all great civilizations rose to power out of the desire to protect their own, so they built weapons, cities, walls, etc. But when you get to a civilization's zenith, when you're THAT powerful...like the US-especially before 9/11-how can there possibly be fear and insecurity? Americans honestly thought they could do anything or not do anything and be fine. Their military might provided them with security.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Naturally, different time periods had different environments, different things going on. Humans generally out of fear seek to control what they don't understand, they don't understand much and thus seek a lot of control and failing to understand, having control is difficult at best and thus destruction and domination the result.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I agree with you. That's how wars begin. But we're talking about conquest here, not war. I can believe that Rome started out fearing its neighboring tribes therefore made advances to ensure it being on top....like US and USSR during the Cold War...both feared the other. But neither countries feared...say...Nepal, you know what I mean? When Rome got out of being small and grew big, really big, like China did, it forgot to be afraid, which ultimately became its downfall (China's too).
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Regarding Americans it's hard to make wide sweeping generalizations. I would say that's America's need for weapons and military might is rooted in fear and insecurity. I would also say that's embedded in the American paradigm in that the country was founded on the heavy use of force and Americans tend to use and abuse force in order to achieve their goals.
iamlumin 1 year ago
Not true. If you're talking about the Cold War, yes, we feared the Soviets. But that's only because they were just as powerful. America had no insecurities before WWII, not really. We did not even want to get involved. But our advances were too great at that time already. People sometimes build things and create technology not out of fear but because they just want to build things. The Manhattan Project was a reaction to Axis aggression, which was self-defense, not this insecurity you speak of.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Who's "we"? I never feared the Soviets. Whether you believe is or not the first act of war is actually defense. Think about iit. There is no war until one engages.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I'm American. My country's leaders feared the Communists and embraced McCarthyism if you recall. I don't know what your point is about the first act of war....The Manhattan Project would not have come to fruition if Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor first....I hope you're not implying the US was the aggressor in WWII.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara It goes much deeper than that. This is my point. War always leads to another war. If mankind maintains the same formula as it has, it will go extinct. There's really no doubt about it. The Manhattan Project was one reaction there could have been another approach. If Tibetans engaged the Chinese there'd be daily suicide bombings in Tibet on a daily basis. They're trying to do something unusual, they're trying a non-violent approach and this of course, is in conflict with the status quo
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin What "other approach?" Sit back and say "please stop?" The USA's involvement ENDED WWII. It did not start another war. If homeless people invade your property, hit your children, eat your food and sleep in your house without permission...and raped your wife. Will you say "please stop?" No. You would kick them out by force at that point. Not all violent reactions are bad. It is not the character of Tibetans to bomb people, that's simply not within their cultural mindset.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Who's says so? It's like a children's game where one pushes down one pin while another pop ups somewhere else. Looks unrelated but they are connected. Your ex. is silly, of course, you'd do what you had to do to protect yourself. Please don't define our cultural mind set. When the Dalai Lama is gone many Tibetans are prepared to change as they are being taught by the Chinese example that violence, oppression & domination are the solution.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin What children's game? Exactly, you'd do whatever to protect yourself, and that has as much to do with bravery as fear. Know a compliment when you see it. Sheesh. Tibetans are not the same as war-like Arabic terrorists. Your culture and mindset has already been defined by yourselves, and it's not a violent one, GENERALLY speaking.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara It's not a violent one because it was developed over hundreds of years to not be a violent one. Of course, the world at large is much more accepting of a violent approach because more often than not is aligns with their own.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I only brought up the self-defense scenario after you suggested Americans should have taken a "different approach" to defend itself after Pearl Harbor. If your enemy is strong, you try to get stronger. It's the only way to win for sure. So, we developed a more powerful weapon. I agree we went overboard with it...becoming the "destroyer of worlds."
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I didn't say they should have I said they could have taken a different approach. No one knows what would have happen in that case. I do know that we still live in a paradigm where killing, bombing and murder seems to be manner in which man attempts to solve things and it has limited effectiveness and eventually may lead to man's absence entirely.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin You're begging the question. You're essentially removing the specific context upon which one can apply usage of the terms "better" or "worse," therefore completely avoiding the argument. It's like if I'm asking you which is better: wireless mouse or mouse with a cable...and you answer with: computers are not important. When I ask you if guns are better weapons, you answer by saying "weapons are bad." Sure enough. But that's an answer to a different question.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Who's arguing? Not I. If you're interested in arguing and embracing duality, and thus opposition then perhaps you will have to seek elsewhere. Every "thing" and every "one" in this dualistic game will come to pass. There is no "isness" to any of it so I have no worries over that which is inherently fiction.
Suffering is wanting things to be different than they are or at least the way you think they are.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin An "argument" is not "arguing." You misunderstand. English isn't your first language, I assume. In the field of study of logic, an "argument" is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the PREMISES along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the CONCLUSION. When I said you avoided the argument, it meant you avoided responding to the declaration.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I'm not avoiding & I understand your argument. You are swimming in deep dualistic waters. At the end of the day you are building your argument for a reason & that reason involves "otherness" & duality and thus there is no end to the number of opinions and arguments that can be organized and put forth by humans. Does your argument have any meaning other than the meaning you say it has or the meaning you "believe" it has. I have no arugment. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin You made an argument when you DECLARED that nations expand due to fear and provided a PREMISE that the fear is rooted in the need to control. That is an argument. I was responding to that argument. I don't swim in dualism. You said fear drives everything a nation does, I disagreed and provided reasons, for us both to contemplate.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara It's not an argument. From my perspective it's a simple observation. You don't have to accept or believe it. I see it. I know it with certitude. It's not based on reasoning, facts and figures. It's much a much deeper level of perceiving.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin how can you improve yourself and your knowledge if you're 100% sure about something and do not question your own judgment? Ever? An observation does not include conclusions. You made a declaration and a conclusion, which together defines a logical argument.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Improve yourself to what end and in what way? You will have the same destination as everyone else. It's a balance, work on your knowledge of "self" and not so much your knowledge of things. Knowing is quite different than knowing about. Most people know about things and really "know" very little. Reading hundreds of books, all you're reading is someone else's opinion and viewpoint on "things", that doesn't make it so.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Improve yourself in exactly the way you describe here. If you do not question your own judgment, how do you know when you've made a mistake? Or are you infallible?
You haven't answered to "Efficiency (fast or slow) and Genuineness are two VERY DIFFERENT topics."
Please, I'd love to see your response to that.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Why would you love to see a response to thatt, so you can add to your already preconceived beliefs about who I am, what I'm about and what I know or don't know?
iamlumin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamlumin "Why would you love to see a response to thatt, so you can add to your already preconceived beliefs about who I am, what I'm about and what I know or don't know?"
No, I'm simply curious.
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin oh the irony:
You are more interested in "being right" than you are interested in what "is right".
Is that an assumption or certainty?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I'll let you decide.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@gariadara Wireless mouse may not be better is you continuously have connection problems and are stuck replacing batteries too often. I never said computers are not important. I said there are those who consider them unimportant and that's a fact. I never said weapons are bad. In reality nothing is good or bad. These are labels that humans place on things and often they find out what they thought was good was actually bad and what they thought was bad was actually good, at least to them.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "The gun is better than the dagger if you have a vested interest in killing more people"
You're implying here that it is bad. Also, when I said internet creates faster communication, you answered by saying: some people could care less about internet, therefore dodging my declaration. I was merely pointing out your habit.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara You "believe" that's what I'm implying. I implied no such thing. Faster communication. It can be argued as you say, that there is very little geniune communication taking place over the internet or on cell phones for all that matters. The habit you say I have. Amazing, you know my habits but no nothing about me. It's true that some people could care less aobut the internet. You simply want opposition.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin When you say "guns kill people" what else am I suppose to infer? I know you're Tibetan. That you have a strong dislike of the CCP's politics. And you have a tendency to beg the question. You see, I was declaring that the internet provides faster communication, and you went to bring up genuine communication which is a different topic. You keep on bringing up a different topic every time I declare something.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I have no dislike for the CCP. Communication is communication. You're communicating or you're not. It's not a different topic. I have no dislike for anyone. I don't argue with the way things seem to be and thus even the CCP is accepted and dealth with from what "I" consider to be a healthier perspective. If i hated them or was angry with them all the time it would likely do me more harm than them.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin There are many aspects of communication. Efficiency (fast or slow) and Genuineness are two VERY DIFFERENT topics. And don't lie about disliking the CCP. If you liked them you wouldn't have said half the things you wrote here.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Okay, I'm done with you. I'm not lying and have no need or motivation to do so. I hold no hatred or anger in my heart toward anyone, anywhere.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Dislike doesn't mean hatred. Don't go overboard now.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Of course is doesn't.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@gariadara Okay, I'm done with you. I'm not lying and have no need or motivation to do so. I hold no hatred or anger in my heart toward anyone, anywhere. You simply must move on and get over it. You appear to think you're very smart. I simply ask that you stop, get very still and ask yourself, "what do I really know for sure" what do I know is absolutely true" and if you're honest you'll get it. If the ego is too strong then forget it and enjoy the ride you're on.
iamlumin 1 year ago
So you made a bunch of declarations that you cannot defend and now you exit with self-appearance of spiritual superiority. yes, I'm totally the one with the stronger ego here.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I never said you have to agree or disagree with anything I've said. I simply made a statement based upon observation, direct experience and first hand knowledge. I never said you had to agree. You turned into a whole conversation about logic, etc, etc, etc, The video is about Tibet, I'm from Tibet, that's all.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin So you make statements (in other words: speak) and don't expect other people to comment on them?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Who said that? You did! Feel free to comment all you like. Who's stopping you?
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin to comment on a point is to agree or disagree with it. What else can one say? I like the third verb that you used?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Again, feel free to comment, agree and/or disagree all you like. The inherent nature of reality remains unchanged, unaltered, etc. Perhaps it's part of my Tibetan heritage, perhaps it's simply a matter of being present. In any case, I never argue with how things appear understanding the underlying nature. If I was to get caught up in the ebb and flow of appearances I sense it would be futile.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@gariadara One can comment on a point without agreeing or disagreeing, it's not automatic. Perhaps one is introducing a perspective that transcends dualy, or maybe one is simply suggesting there may be another approach or way to look at something in a different context. In other words, they are not agreeing or disagreeing, simply putting out the possibility that there may be yet another approach.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin How's that different from disagreeing? one wouldn't suggest different approaches unless there is something inadequate with the stated approach. And to point out inadequacies is to voice a disagreement. You make no sense.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Again you're stuck in a dualistic game, good vs bad, right vs wrong, agreeing vs disagreeing. I have no interest in this game. Pointing out different approaches does not suggest inadequacies. It simply suggest that there may be other ways to look at something. I make no sense to someone like yourself who can't comprehend what they have yet to realize themselves. So be it.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Then there'd be no reason to point out different approaches because if none stands out among the others, then they might as well all be the same approach, therefore what's the point of suggesting anything? It's as moot as CocaCola vs Pepsi.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara If one already has a fixed idea of how it is then one lives in limitation. To be open to a variety of approaches just reveals that there are other possibilities. What stands out for one person may not stand out for another. If no one suggested there are options available other than Coke & Pepsi then we'd be stuck in the limited soft drink paradigm of Coke & Pepsi only. It's not that Dr. Pepper or Mountain Dew are better, just another option that one has the freedom to explore.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "To be open to a variety of approaches just reveals that there are other possibilities. What stands out for one person may not stand out for another."
Exactly. And the process of declaring, concluding, disagreeing and agreeing all work together to establish this variety. However you're now talking about something a bit different than what I was talking about. I was saying that coke and pepsi are "different approaches" but arrive at the same thing cus neither one is better.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara That's not a matter of declaring, concluding, agree or disagreeing.
I wasn't pointing out that one may simply find themselves selecting one thing in one moment and something completely different in the next. This doesn't me one disagrees, agrees, declares or concludes anything to anyone else or for anyone else. One simply makes a
choice for the joy of being able to do so.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I'm not talking about joy or personal tastes. I've been trying to leave out emotional factors in our current discussion about "duality." I'm sure it may be more "joyful" for person A use to Birch wood because maybe he is fond of them because his mom played with him in a birch forest when he was little.....but that has absolutely nothing to do with the practical making of paper and in the end isn't something that will matter (the the paper making process overall).
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin @iamlumin I'm not talking about joy or personal tastes. I've been trying to leave out emotional factors in our current discussion about "duality." I'm sure it may be more "joyful" for person A use to Birch wood because maybe he is fond of them because his mom played with him in a birch forest when he was little.....but that has absolutely nothing to do with the practical making of paper and in the end isn't something that will matter (the the paper making process overall).
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Maybe it's nothing to do with joy it all. Maybe that's simply what Person A wants to do and that's all.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Wants have little to do with indications. I'm a doctor, patients want things all the time that they don't need. I can't just give it to them without establishing medical necessity.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Indications can be interpreted differently by different people. They are not stuck in cement.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin You understand the concept of context...obviously since you keep knocking me over and over with the importance of different contexts. In my example, I was a doctor. My patient has no pain. But he wants pain meds. Medically, there is no indication. there is only one interpretation of that situation. Let's take another example: mathematics. There are different ways to solve a problem but the number of ways are not infinite. there are a handful and they are the same across the universe.
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin Dr. Pepper has a "better" cherry taste than Coke. Mountain Dew has "more" of a lime taste than Dr. Pepper. When I use the terms "better" or "worse" that's how I'm using them. It doesn't mean I'm restricting to dualism but duality is in everything. Yin and Yang are always distinguishable in all things, but they are also always together in all things. One cannot exist without the other. And in fact they are One.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara It has a better cherry taste to "you" than Coke and Mountain Dew has more of a lime taste than Dr. Peper to "you". So what? Again, Yin and Yang, stuck in duality forever. "They" are "One" is a silly statement. Again, from my perspective. If "they" are one then there is only one and there is no "they" to discuss.
iamlumin 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@iamlumin "It has a better cherry taste to "you" than Coke and Mountain Dew has more of a lime taste than Dr. Peper to "you"."
Oh come on. You're telling me you taste Lime in Dr. Pepper? Do you taste chocolate in salted pork too? We are all the same species, sure there is relativity in perception but if is indeed THAT different across everybody it'd be impossible to be social animals...cus then no one would be able to have common ground with anyone else.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Perceptions can be very different and so can the level of importance individuals place on any given situation. What would happen if people were completely and I mean completely honest with each other 24./7? The social relationships may look very different.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin But you do taste sweet when you eat chocolate and salty when you eat salted pork right?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I do but the degree of sweet or salt is different than let's say my wife for example.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I know that. But my point was that there is SOME commonality. You don't need to split hairs.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Now if one already thinks they have all the answers then you're right there is little point in anyone making suggestions to them or for one to post on the web, other than to flaunt ones own sense of rightness and expand ones ballooning ego.
iamlumin 1 year ago
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Person: C - Why don't you Person A use the trees you want to use to
make paper and you Person B use the trees you want to use to make paper? After all, ones person's carrot is another person's ice cream.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "Person: C - Why don't you Person A use the trees you want to use to"
That's exactly my point. Thank you! Because it doesn't matter which tree anyone uses, since the different approach isn't more or less "adequate" than the other. It's stupid for Person A to suggest using Birch to Person B at all. Now if Birch is EASIER to obtain, then and only then would it be LOGICAL to suggest it to Person B, since that approach would now be MORE adequate.
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin It makes no sense because it isn't logical what you said. There CANNOT be a reason for needing to look at something a different way unless there are benefits in doing so which otherwise could not be obtained from the initial perspective. It is important to recognize reality in all its perfections and its flaws, in doing so better understanding the world. If you believe in what you preach, I invite you to contemplate my perspective.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara No, it makes no sense to you. Everything doesn't need a reason from my perspective.It's now logical to "you". Now what are you calling "reality" and how are you defining "reality" would be the
question?
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Reality is the objective observable world around us. Logic is universal. It exists whether or not the universe exists or not. Because it is math, and math isn't subjective dude.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Wouldn't you say that reality is what "is", what exist now, what is real or genuine?
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Yeah. Reality is what is real: AKA the observable universe and everything in it.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Is that right? In the so-called observable world from a human perspective one is always dealing with "that wich isn't anymore" or "that which isn't yet" and never with that which IS. Indeed, time would be that point when it is not now. When is not now? Tell me.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin What? Now I'm talking to you. Is there a point to that time question?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara The point is that you should perhaps reread the post. The observable world from a human perpective has nothing to do with "reality". It's arriving and leaving and is never NOW, it never just IS. Duality is a fiction. That's my last word on the subject. Good luck!
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin yes I know all about the limitations of human perception yada yada yada... But we have machines and computers now to assess reality for us. Scientists take samples, dude. They made medications. Which (gasp) works! Well most of them. Which means our perception is okay. Duality is fiction. I know what you're trying to say, because duality only exists in relation to something. I'm tall, you're short (but only because I'm tall).
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Scientists study the world of effects and finite phenomena. Machines and computers access reality. That's funny. Scientist make medications that work, that's debatable and in many circles it is debated. That's not what I'm saying about duality. honestly, there is no "isnness" to the dualistic paradigm that seems to appear. It's always coming & going, or coming, never "being". Only being is being. Science never solves a problem without creating ten more. George Bernard Shaw
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Right...I really don't know what you're talking about. Earth to iamlumin, come back down from the astral plane. Okay, lame joke. I was talking in terms of mundane practicality. If you want to talk spirituality, fine. I'm not interested in that at all. Of course medicine is debated. It's the only way to improve the field. In fact, that how most fields progress.
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin I'm not thinking I'm right.....there happen to be a billion people who agree with me on that...about the prime numbers. Prime numbers are integers that are only divisible by themselves and 1..... is there a reason why you would believe that integers do not exist somewhere else in the universe?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara So there we have it. It's about being right? Thank you for solidifying my point. In the absence of words, labels, man made concepts, there is no such thing as a number, as quantity. So many people live clinging to that which is finite. They live the mantra, I am more because I have more, I am more because I know more, I am more because I've done more. It's all complete bullshit. Infinity is changeless reality and there is no co-existing with infinite presense.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "In the absence of words, labels, man made concepts, there is no such thing as a number, as quantity."
No. There are still 9 planets in this solar system whether human beings evolved or not. 9 is a number.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Okay, that's untrue. As the word and number "9" or "nine" would have no existence at all. At a certain point the intellect is a barrier to knowingness. Again, a person can seeming know a lot about things and actually "know" very little.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "Okay, that's untrue. As the word and number "9" or "nine" would have no existence at all."
The WORD wouldn't exist, but the planets still would. Words are tools we made to give things names, but it doesn't mean the things aren't there before I named them. My daughter Sophie existed before I named her . The existence of the universe and the 9 planets does not depend on us nor does it require us to name them. If humans go extinct, would the universe disappear?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara That which exist is real, that which exist IS. Every "thing" your talking about falls into the catagory of that which IS NOT YET or that which IS NOT ANYMORE and never does it fall into the catagory of THAT WHICH IS. The oberservable world perceived through the so-called human sense is fictional and does not exist, is not actual, is not real or reality. So the planets would be part of that and have no ISNESS at all.
iamlumin 1 year ago
haha, what a joke. I understand the concept of the virtual universe mate. You're trying to say that our perception of the real thing is only an image. Well duh. Tell me something we don't already know. The image of the nine planets are generated from the reality of the nine planets. If our perception is so unreliable, nothing would be able to function in this world. You drink water don't you? well it's quite real. Without it you die. water is not fictional.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Who's talking about virtural universe. I'm pointing to that which is not a concept not the concept of a virtual universe. Forms appear to die, life never dies, being that life has no beginning and no end. Mate! Again, you know it all, you're right and I have already said so be it but you're such a colossal blow hard that you simply cannot stop yourself from continuing on, and thus I will stop for you so you can start up your meaningless rant with someone else.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin In fact the reason why we counted 9 planets was because there were 9 distinct things up there to be counted in the first place. Without these individual things that have existed before us to prompt us of their existence we wouldn't have come up with the term "9 planets" now would we? If another alien species traveled here they'd count 9 planets too in their own alien language.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Or maybe they'd call that one eubock, I don't know. Whatever, they might have an entirely different system of identifying and counting. Scientist discover and work with relative facts, and declare it a fact, that is until they find out they were wrong and come up with a new "fact" and then years later find out that was wrong and . . .
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "entirely different system of identifying and counting."
Sure but ask yourself this: how come mathematics across ancient civilizations that have no contact with one another all eventually arrive at the same set of rules? Could it be because these rules were written into the very fabric of existence itself? And that we're not making them up in our heads but discovering them? If it's fictional, counting wouldn't help you and typing on your keyboard is meaningless because I'm not real.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I never said there's any big meaning to any of this, you did. You seem to think you're actually in control of everything. Do you breath yourself? Will you decide when the body stops breathing? Do you decide in advance what thoughts you will have tomorrow or even 5 minutes from now? You have thoughts and the ones you believe in become incorporated into your fictional identity and then you spend your days defending your stories that you now wholeheartedly believe.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "Do you breath yourself? Will you decide when the body stops breathing? Do you decide in advance what thoughts you will have tomorrow or even 5 minutes from now?"
uh....yeah? I have a voluntary motor system, it can stop or start my breathing on my will. It's how people, you know, swim......what are you smoking? sheesh.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara So you personally and consciously decide what thoughts to have and when you'll have them?? In addition, you know exactly when your body will stop breathing? Obviously, you're doing more than smoking something. You don't even know what's going to happen in the next 5 minutes never mind the next day or year. The moment you think you have a plan and you know it all, life will send you a reminder.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Of course not everything is within my control. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT. But to say I don't know when I start and stop breathing is stupid. So you don't plan ahead just because you can't control the universe? What's the point of having free will then? You can't control your typing on your keyboard to answer my comments? You could and you did, despite that possibly that the Sun could have exploded while you were typing.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara It's not stupid it's a fact. The day you stop breathing for good, you have no idea when that will happen. You have no idea what thoughts you'll have when you wake up tomorrow morning. That's a fact. I'm not claiming to control everything so the typing happens or it doesn't. The thought may arise that says there's no point in responding or it may not. I don't control that. I'm not stupid and egotistical enough to think that I do.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin You don't have control over your own thoughts? that explains a lot....
What I mean is that people have will. We all have volition. And we CAN control our volition. Our desires are a bit harder to control. Our subconscious near impossible. But our superegos, the part where thinking occurs, we most certainly do control. Random thoughts in the morning are due to a voluntary relinquishment of control. It's not egotistical to think you wanted to type and you typed.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Superegos, egos, it's all semantics, simply labels. So you control your thinking, when you think and what you'll think about? You know what you're going to be thinking about let's say 2 hours from now? And when you suddenly die when you least expect it, in that moment is that your will? It's an illusion to think you're "personally" controlling much at all. People like to "think" this because they live in fear. The idea they have control seems to dissipate that fear a bit.
iamlumin 1 year ago
Of course I can't predict the future. I can only control me, not outside environments. I plan to cook dinner in 2 hours. And in 2 hours I will most likely be thinking about ingredients. I'm 26. Healthy. I live in a very safe neighborhood in California. Sure there is a billion things that can kill me in 2 hours. But right now, I'm guessing the likelihood is less. I never said I thought I can control much of what happens to me. What I can control is my own thoughts and how I react to a situation.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara So you still believe you control your thoughts? When you'll have them and what they will be. Good luck with that. You're in for some big surprises.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Of course I can control my thoughts. It's the world around me I can't control. I've already said that. I can and I am comfortable with HOW I REACT to unpredictable things. Surprises are only scary when you can't trust your own judgment. I'm sure anything can happen. My husband may die of cancer, my kids may be kidnapped, an asteroid may fall on the earth. What use is thinking about these things?
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin In the absence of evidence, it is not logical to assume something exists. I think a blue giant frog with red hair that speaks Spanish lives on the moon. Well it's possible. I can't prove that no one has seen it. But that's pointless because anything that anyone can think of can be deemed to possibly exist, from Tinkerbell to Neytiri. It's no different than the flying spaghetti monster. So no, until we have proof it's ridiculous to suppose other universes exist.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara So you're saying no one knows? And in effect you are saying you found out because if you know no one knows that means you "know".
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I'm not saying no one knows. I'm saying there is no reason for me to believe anyone knows. If someone thinks they discovered something it is up to that person to show it to the rest of us, no? But before he does show it, why would I believe that it would exist?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Existence, that which is real, that which IS, is not visible to the human sense. I don't "believe that. I don't have faith. I know it!
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin knowing about differences in perception between people is useful to take into account the small margin of variation across different people's perceptions. But to say that it is fictional is preposterous. Independent individuals have all saw and verified 9 planets in different languages. Which strongly indicates that our human sense's accuracy is adequate, since natural phenomena can be independently verified.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara In the world of physics we watch a shadowgraph performance of the drama of familiar life. The shadow of my elbow rests on the shadow table as the shadow ink flows over the shadow paper. It is all symbolic, and as a symbol the physicist leaves it. ... The frank realization that physical science is concerned with a world of shadows is one of the most significant of recent advances.
— Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin yes well that is moot as the "shadow" is cast by something. And that something surely exists. Frogs would still dance in dew circles and eat insects after we're extinct. Or are you so anthrocentric that your actually believe in some sort of virtual universe?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Of course, you know more than a well know physicist. I would trying to say that even within your fictional dualistic limited paradigm scientist admit and physicist admit that what is observable is 99.999999…. empty space and they don't know, they really don't know.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I don't know more. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions from what that "famous physicist" said. He said our perception is a shadow of reality. Which only means that it's not quite the real thing, but the real thing's effect is certainly felt, and can be measured and its future actions can be predicted. scientists accurately predict things all the time. how do you explain the ability to do that if our "shadow" perception is completely fictional and thus unreliable as you say?
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara He didn't say it's a shadow of our reality. "We" do nothing as in reality there is no "we". There is no absolute separation. any sane scientist will tell you their are really no individuals at all. There is no separation, no "we" no "us". etc. When you see it for yourself you'll stop defending your ego based positions. There's just reality and reality is infinity and not even that. The best that can be said in language is, that which IS, is all there IS. Good luck!
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin No, you're the one claiming to know how things worked. Not me. It is you who declares there is no "we" no "us" and that reality is "infinity." Isn't it ironic that you claim to know that for sure while chiding me for being skeptical?
gariadara 1 year ago
@iamlumin Even if I go to another universe, as long as I have my brain, I can still do division and I will still be able to calculate prime numbers.....numbers don't depend on the physical world.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Again, in the absence of man made concepts, words, labels, concepts, etc numbers have no meaning at all. What is a billion of anything next to infinity? Nothing, powerless, meaningless. These concepts only have the meaning you believe they have, and the more people you get to agree the more true they seem to be. However, that doesn not make them true. The most stubborn clinging to a falsehood, a fiction, does not make it any less a fiction.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Bottom line: remember logic is universal, the first 5 prime numbers are 2 3 5 7 11 everywhere in the universe (except for maybe in a naked singularity)
gariadara 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gariadara Please don't tell me what to remember or not remember. "the first 5 prime numbers are 2 3 5 7 11 everywhere in the universe (except for maybe in a naked singularity)" Really? So you've been everywhere in the universe? And I suppose to you there is only this one universe of which you speak? Infinity is reality and infinity is non-numerical. Again, from the way "I" see it. You are free to see it the way you do. I have no problem with that.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin "Really? So you've been everywhere in the universe?"
Mathematics don't change according to location. Numbers are independent of the universe. It's the other way around, the universe is built on math. Otherwise there'd be no way to send people to the moon. I haven't seen other universes. No one has. So it's ridiculous to assume anything about that. How are you defining infinity? Mathematically? The observable universe is quite finite.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara "I haven't seen other universes. No one has." How do you know? In other words, how did you find out that know one has? Infinity is reality. That which IS is all there IS and that which IS is not a "was" or a "will be". Reality is NOW!
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin How do YOU know all that? I don't speculate on what is possible, that brings nothing but philosophizing because anything is possible. I'm not in the habit of having dinner with the flying spaghetti monster (aka alternate universes). I only contemplate on what is observable. If someone has seen other universes, well the burden of proof is on them.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara The idea of proving things often requires that you prove it to yourself. Until a person knows at a very deep level. they are simply believers in how another sees, interprets and reports on things. Note:The human senses are often flawed when contemplating the observable, for ex, a pencil in a glass of water looks bent, A person sees this and knows the pencil is straight so doesn't buy into it. But how many other things in the observable world are "bent" that they're maybe not aware of?
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin that's why in science, we have a system in which many independent parties verify things for thousands of times. But my point wasn't about proof but about suggestion. It is fruitless to suggest things exist that we simply cannot perceive.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara I said I was done and you're right about it all and you still continue on. Wow! You still don't get it anyway and it's okay a person can't comprehend what they have failed to already realize on their own.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin You're right, not everything needs a reason. But the things we have been talking about do. There is a reason why people invented the airplane: namely to get to places faster. Now of course that only matters to people who want to get to places faster but the point is it matters to those specific people. And people's needs change so it's nice to keep options open, just sayin'
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Again, just sayin' what's "better" to one isn't always "better" to another. Getting somewhere faster may be of total unimportance a certain people and to others it may be very important. Inherently on its own it's not "better" to be faster.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin Dude I understand that. I've already said in my post that faster is only important to people who need to get someplace fast. the terms "better" and "worse" CANNOT apply without a specific goal and context, mate. Don't tell you weren't aware that I knew that all this time. Fast is only better with the specific goal of needing to be somewhere fast.
gariadara 1 year ago
@gariadara Listen you seem to think you already know it all and are attempting to use the intellect to validate your preconcieved notions. So be it. I already said, move on, you're right about eveyrthing. Feel better? I suspect not.
iamlumin 1 year ago
@iamlumin I don't it all. I know logic. Let's not talk about me but get back on topic, shall we? Afterall, I 'm not the subject of discussion, the concepts of duality and taking various perspectives are
gariadara 1 year ago