Sean, Do you know how you understood this communication to you? There is more of where that came from as long as you understand your existence that way.
As of now, there is nothing you will be doing within the activity area of science that you are trying to understand yourself around with life that is using itself interested in how knowledge is formed and experiences placed to existence areas either within what is continuousness universe (the area of unity) or discontinuous universe (the area of integration). Right now you are understood as "understanding life" and you can look for another interest that can be built upon when you experience telling yourself something or experience areas of yourself engaged in non appreciated activity that you can not see or explain.
You're just trolling on this site aren't you? Trying to get people all riled up with incoherent stuff that cleverly disguises as something profound? It is interesting how that almost always works.
WTF? Is this perhaps related to the earlier mention of DMT? Please refrain from dosing before typing. Thanks so much.
Nope, its about the conversation on self awareness and free-will, nothing at all to do with this! Have to say whatever wholeys dropping must be some seriously potent stuff!
Most interesting to me is that it is unclear how much I can say I know anything. I have about 3 pounds of "wetware" in my skull, which takes sensory inputs and organizes them into what I perceive as reality. Is that actually reality? I probably approach the best approximation of reality with the right "software', i.e. scientific rationalism, but ultimately what I know or claim to know cannot be proved to an absolute certainty.
While this is interesting, I don't give it a lot of thought when it comes to whether I step out in front of that bus.
Have you read "The Fabric of Reality" and "The Beginning of Infinity?" I think you might enjoy those :)
the possibility that humanity could SURVIVE the death of our universe. Imagine hopping over to a new universe before ours dies.
It has been theorized that the space between certain galaxies is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light creating a causal disconnect. That is too say that nothing that occurs in one of these galaxies could affect the other as matter cannot travel fast enough to cross the gap.
Pretty interesting I'd like to think.
Interesting! I vaguely recall hearing something like this. Is there a link where I might read up on this a little bit? Supraluminal anything is endlessly fascinating!
The most interesting thing I know is that there is no true knowledge. Everything is based on at least one assumption.
i see Barry Eckert has said something similar. I guess we pretty much agree.
But if our knowledge (say, a theory) of something got replaced tomorrow by something that takes into account new evidence, and so explains everything the old theory explains but more and with greater accuracy then wouldn't you say that the 2nd theory is truer than the first?
So that means that you believe that there is something called the truth and that we are capable of and in fact ARE moving closer to the truth. But, I suppose you mean to say that we can never have absolute knowledge of something. In which, I am afraid you might be right. But I don't think it is fair to say there is no true knowledge, because it is misleading and unfortunately provides fodder for theists! Anyway, that isn't that big of a concern I suppose.
You might enjoy reading this...
It's funny, Vincent, that you should ask that particular question. On my website, I was just referred to a paper by Donald D. Hoffman (Department of Cognitive Science, University of California at Irvine) titled, "Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem", which lays out his theory that "Consciousness is fundamental in the universe, not a fitfully emerging latecomer."
Now, his theory turns just about everybody's concept of reality on its head. But it enjoys advantages over more conventional physicalist notions that consciousness emerges from the brain or that consciousness IS the brain. It even features a mathematical proof of the possibility of spectrum inversion. The theory is so radical, it can be difficult to absorb. Essentially, he claims objective reality is nothing like what we perceive it to be. Instead, our brains construct a multi-modal user interface (MUI) (much like the Windows graphical user interface) to simplify, for survival's sake, objective reality for us. Objective reality is unknowable. The moon is different for you than it is for me because our brains create our experience of the moon. The moon is just an icon in our MUI.
This theory enjoys advantages such as: agreement with Quantum Theory; obviating philosophical conundrums associated with the mind/body problem; a scientifically rigorous mathematical proof; and more. It would seem to be a technically better explanation of reality than more conventional explanations.
Does this theory's ability to answer more questions mean the "theory is truer than" the others? I don't think so. Our ignorance of consciousness is deep and wide. We can be wrong in ANY direction. Conjecture is infinite.