Tuning into other frequencies? I guess that's like empathy or, you know, when you have a close friend or loved one and you 'know' when you are feeling or thinking in the same way. Or like when you're studying together with someone, you tune to the same frequency... Actually, it's one reason I like the antenna theory - it makes clairvoyance, channeling and telepathic experiences graspable in a new way. But could you become another person? Maybe, idk, but I think it would be hard to completely lose (tune away from) yourself in the process. Would be kind of like getting rid of a habit.
Posts archived: 81 / 81 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
You don't know that.
Religion is yet open to interpretation.
What if individual heaven and hell were a means of expressing how the individual would feel watching their offspring, their family, their country, and perhaps even all of humanity be mutated into awful creatures (by our standards) as the result of something like Global Thermonuclear War (Hell), else the feeling of accomplishment when humanity overcomes their differences, heals the planet and learning to live in harmony with each other, and nature (Heaven).
Most religious texts come out and tell you that they involve heavy use of symbolism and encourage you to figure out, or attain Enlightenment, as it were.
Religion is yet open to interpretation.
What if individual heaven and hell were a means of expressing how the individual would feel watching their offspring, their family, their country, and perhaps even all of humanity be mutated into awful creatures (by our standards) as the result of something like Global Thermonuclear War (Hell), else the feeling of accomplishment when humanity overcomes their differences, heals the planet and learning to live in harmony with each other, and nature (Heaven).
Most religious texts come out and tell you that they involve heavy use of symbolism and encourage you to figure out, or attain Enlightenment, as it were.
I just had a really amusing thought while reading that... A retrospective observation if you will... I have seen many religions folk say 'whats what' And many religious folk propose occurrence dependant on an 'If'.... However... i can't recall that many of the religious persuasion ever using 'What If' as often as they could.
Maybe just an amusing thought..... I'd love it if there was something deeper there, Like it all being accounted for by the inability to connect the concepts of what and if >_<
Maybe just an amusing thought..... I'd love it if there was something deeper there, Like it all being accounted for by the inability to connect the concepts of what and if >_<
Interesting, Realist, but it seems you're making light of a very serious concept.
Most people believe what they're taught. They do it for social reasons, which is why religion exists at all, as a means of socialization. Religion is one means by which cultural identity comes about.
Rare indeed is the individual who dares to question what they are taught, and rarer still those who choose not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I choose not to ask "Is this true?" and prefer to ask instead, "In what way might this be true?" The former leads to argumentation, the latter to enlightenment.
I try to bear in mind that the ancients were struggling with concepts that we still struggle with today: the concept of the infinite, evolution, ecology, agriculture, and so on. These things and more are mentioned in religious texts, by people who had not been taught them in science class. I can't help but find it all fascinating.
Most people believe what they're taught. They do it for social reasons, which is why religion exists at all, as a means of socialization. Religion is one means by which cultural identity comes about.
Rare indeed is the individual who dares to question what they are taught, and rarer still those who choose not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I choose not to ask "Is this true?" and prefer to ask instead, "In what way might this be true?" The former leads to argumentation, the latter to enlightenment.
I try to bear in mind that the ancients were struggling with concepts that we still struggle with today: the concept of the infinite, evolution, ecology, agriculture, and so on. These things and more are mentioned in religious texts, by people who had not been taught them in science class. I can't help but find it all fascinating.
Realistically speaking, its safe to assume i am flawed as i produce flawed results. And so any knowledge i obtain may also be flawed.
What is real? Real is unknown, its assumption, a best guess... regardless of what state, there is potentially an alternative explanation... no thing is 'known' only thought to be.
So am i a realist? >_<
Religion is seemingly flawed in general. Maybe one or two are correct, but due to contradictions, at least some of it must be perpetuated lies (edit - or mistakes!). With the absence of evidence, a rational individual would assume there is a chance that their own religion was the false one and not the other religion that has different views. Even if just a small part of their belief... it would make them agnostic... interested in the possibility of divine as dictated by religion. But not 'religious'
I think its important to make a distinction though, one i often skip over. There are some who are 'religious and agnostic' as in, they won't try to tell others of a truth they have no intention of providing evidence for.
There are many religious folk i do respect. But purveyors of abusive, severely flawed ideology under the guise of 'known truth'
Yeah... i'll continue to make light of that till someone claims to have first hand experience that confirms their belief in their religion. And then i will ask them if they are perfect.
What is real? Real is unknown, its assumption, a best guess... regardless of what state, there is potentially an alternative explanation... no thing is 'known' only thought to be.
So am i a realist? >_<
Religion is seemingly flawed in general. Maybe one or two are correct, but due to contradictions, at least some of it must be perpetuated lies (edit - or mistakes!). With the absence of evidence, a rational individual would assume there is a chance that their own religion was the false one and not the other religion that has different views. Even if just a small part of their belief... it would make them agnostic... interested in the possibility of divine as dictated by religion. But not 'religious'
I think its important to make a distinction though, one i often skip over. There are some who are 'religious and agnostic' as in, they won't try to tell others of a truth they have no intention of providing evidence for.
There are many religious folk i do respect. But purveyors of abusive, severely flawed ideology under the guise of 'known truth'
Yeah... i'll continue to make light of that till someone claims to have first hand experience that confirms their belief in their religion. And then i will ask them if they are perfect.
How do you know your results are ultimately flawed? Ever watch the Butterfly Effect? That shit can happen with good results too!
I define reality as an unknown and use my limited perceptions of it.
But back to the topic! Consider that if one simulation of "reality" exists, then any number of them could potentially exist. The more simulations of reality that are intelligently designed, the higher the probability that you are I exist in the context of one.
I define reality as an unknown and use my limited perceptions of it.
But back to the topic! Consider that if one simulation of "reality" exists, then any number of them could potentially exist. The more simulations of reality that are intelligently designed, the higher the probability that you are I exist in the context of one.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo
I know someone else posted a YouTube video. But trust me watch this one. It's called consciousness hallucination and is a very interesting TED talk which goes into great detail about the very things your are talking about.
I know someone else posted a YouTube video. But trust me watch this one. It's called consciousness hallucination and is a very interesting TED talk which goes into great detail about the very things your are talking about.
I have always enjoyed this line of reasoning, from Plato's Allegory of the Cave to Descartes' Meditations. There is a current, ongoing project called OpenWorm that you might find interesting. We are becoming, in effect, Descartes' Evil Demon. This does not imply that we are not ourselves simulated - therein lies infinite regress. Here's a little video:
I don't 'know' my results are ultimately flawed, Just as i do not know i am not perfect. That said, If i have to assume either way. Belief in self perfection sounds like its very dangerous... especially if not warranted.
Yeah, they use detail resolution and comparison to this reality as a marker... Buuut... who said realities have to be detailed. To my understanding it just needs alternative space and alternative rules.. We have those... And the existence of those spaces are evidence that suggest the chance of this being base reality is likely very very slim..
For me it goes further. What isn't simulated ... How could there be a base reality with no origin and one that isn't based on anything... or made by anything... Literally causeless, timeless, foundationless.. Only answers for that i have ever managed to accept at least in part.
Causality loop... In my mind... base reality needs one...
So even if we are in base reality as opposed to a fabricated reality.... We have equally strange things to worry about... Simulated reality is a far more preferable place to be in most of my trails of thought. Less interesting maybe. But it sounds far less risky.
Yeah, they use detail resolution and comparison to this reality as a marker... Buuut... who said realities have to be detailed. To my understanding it just needs alternative space and alternative rules.. We have those... And the existence of those spaces are evidence that suggest the chance of this being base reality is likely very very slim..
For me it goes further. What isn't simulated ... How could there be a base reality with no origin and one that isn't based on anything... or made by anything... Literally causeless, timeless, foundationless.. Only answers for that i have ever managed to accept at least in part.
Causality loop... In my mind... base reality needs one...
So even if we are in base reality as opposed to a fabricated reality.... We have equally strange things to worry about... Simulated reality is a far more preferable place to be in most of my trails of thought. Less interesting maybe. But it sounds far less risky.
Yeah, that's a cool vid, I've been living and breathing this realm of thought for well over a decade now >_<
I started making my own, his names Timmy - Timmy The Worm
(he got got by a spade if you're wondering where his head is)
(he got got by a spade if you're wondering where his head is)
there really is no def for this...
At this point I'll dump some new (or old) ideas. Maybe you can use some of them.
If there are nested realities, what do they have in common? In a way they could all still be rooted in the 'main' reality. Kind of like running nested virtual machines on a computer. Ultimately, they all have their data on the physical drive of the PC and by pulling the plug, all of them disappear. The OS just perceives and identifies those VMs as inside of each other. Since all the data is still on the 'base', then maybe in the same way, it's just our perception of the data, that makes us see something as (potentially) nested, whereas in reality there is no such thing as nested or base existences.
I guess here are some other questions or wild thoughts that arise in my mind:
- Tao Te Ching
If there are nested realities, what do they have in common? In a way they could all still be rooted in the 'main' reality. Kind of like running nested virtual machines on a computer. Ultimately, they all have their data on the physical drive of the PC and by pulling the plug, all of them disappear. The OS just perceives and identifies those VMs as inside of each other. Since all the data is still on the 'base', then maybe in the same way, it's just our perception of the data, that makes us see something as (potentially) nested, whereas in reality there is no such thing as nested or base existences.
I guess here are some other questions or wild thoughts that arise in my mind:
- How to define reality or a cause? I feel we would end up in a loop while defining at least one of them.
- Maybe all causes are illusions? The future could just as well 'cause' the past.
- Can reality be a cause of itself? Maybe paradoxes are the nature of everything?
- What are the 'risks' in any situation if only the void, from which everything arises, is 'real'?
- If our perceptions of reality are just that, maybe we're asking the 'wrong' questions anyway?
- Tao Te Ching
I love some of the thoughts you are expressing. But i find it very hard to piece together what you are trying to say.
a 'Causality loop' is the future creating the past, it is a potential paradoxical origin. That said, a paradox is 100% impossible... Even if we were somehow able to rationalise a paradaox... if one ever is anything but 100% impossible, it would prove itself to not be a paradox.
I think you have a good grasp of some.. but your words are a tad confusing for me, and i do not think you have a great grasp of the fundamentals.
'Maybe paradoxes are the nature of everything' Maybe work out the nature of a paradox before proposing its the nature of something else >_<
a 'Causality loop' is the future creating the past, it is a potential paradoxical origin. That said, a paradox is 100% impossible... Even if we were somehow able to rationalise a paradaox... if one ever is anything but 100% impossible, it would prove itself to not be a paradox.
I think you have a good grasp of some.. but your words are a tad confusing for me, and i do not think you have a great grasp of the fundamentals.
'Maybe paradoxes are the nature of everything' Maybe work out the nature of a paradox before proposing its the nature of something else >_<
- 'What are the 'risks' in any situation if only the void, from which everything arises, is 'real'?
- If our perceptions of reality are just that, maybe we're asking the 'wrong' questions anyway?'
I don't think this expresses the thoughts you think it does. I can't take meaning from it, i'll try again soon.
Well, these were meant to be wild ideas, which I had before falling asleep last night. Feel free to interpret them in any way you like and see where it leads you.
One common theme I tried to express was that trying to rationalise might be a trap and could hinder the comprehension of the bigger picture. What other ways are there to grasp existence? I guess one answer to that would possibly mean delving into mysticism or another state of mind - although, in some of those states verbal expression gets difficult.
Another theme was that people are using too many predefined ideas or assumptions, possibly based on perception, and it might be useful to look deeper into those first... but maybe that's just me going too meta again.
One common theme I tried to express was that trying to rationalise might be a trap and could hinder the comprehension of the bigger picture. What other ways are there to grasp existence? I guess one answer to that would possibly mean delving into mysticism or another state of mind - although, in some of those states verbal expression gets difficult.
Another theme was that people are using too many predefined ideas or assumptions, possibly based on perception, and it might be useful to look deeper into those first... but maybe that's just me going too meta again.
The abuse of an innocent child is always wrong/evil. It is never right/good. I'm sure you can agree. It is very strong evidence that indeed morality is not relative, a tatste or choice. It is an absolute.
The only way this can be true is if there is some type of mind PRIOR to the human mind (God) to define and create these standards of right and wrong, good and evil. If it were not so then it would be the human mind to define and create them. Therefore, depending on which culture or person you ask moralitiy then becomes relative.
The only way this can be true is if there is some type of mind PRIOR to the human mind (God) to define and create these standards of right and wrong, good and evil. If it were not so then it would be the human mind to define and create them. Therefore, depending on which culture or person you ask moralitiy then becomes relative.
Morality is relative... An innocent child being abused is for sure a shame... But hypothetically there could be a scenario where an innocent person abuses an innocent child for a morally justified reason. i.e. If the alternative is the torture and death of 1,000 equally innocent children, it would be immoral not to abuse said innocent child (Obviously assuming no alternatives)
I think morality is dependant on specific factors and therefore relative...
Eating a banana isn't morally wrong, But if i say i will shoot someone if you eat my bannana, Now eating a bannana is not so morally correct... seems relative to me.
I think morality is dependant on specific factors and therefore relative...
Eating a banana isn't morally wrong, But if i say i will shoot someone if you eat my bannana, Now eating a bannana is not so morally correct... seems relative to me.
Indeed, most people believe what they're taught. But, now it is up to the individual to discern whether what they've been taught is correct/true. If you're taught that 2+2=5 your whole life and then someone comes along and says that 2+2=4, then it is up to the individual to go back and study carefully what they've been taught to discern the truth of the matter.
It is the same with spiritual matters. What is the truth of where we are ultimately from? Why are we here? While we are here, how should we behave ethically/morally? Is there meaning and purpose to our lives? What about death, is there life after death?
There is an absoulte truth to all of these questions. You can say all religions are the same, but if you're honest with yourself you need to acknowledge that they are all answering these questions differently. That is there are contradictions between their main source documents. So, as a thinking human being with a rational mind you need to discern which one is correct/true. Which one squares with your human experience?
There is a reason why the center of islam is and always will be the middle east. There is a reason why buddhism isn't plausible in modern society. There is a reason why Christianity has spread throughout the entire world. It's because Jesus isn't for one race or culture. It is because Jesus Christ is for the whole world. It may suprise you but there are more followers of Christ today in South America, Africa, and Asia then the enitre West combined. It is because people can identify with Christ, he squares perfectly with our human condition.
It is the same with spiritual matters. What is the truth of where we are ultimately from? Why are we here? While we are here, how should we behave ethically/morally? Is there meaning and purpose to our lives? What about death, is there life after death?
There is an absoulte truth to all of these questions. You can say all religions are the same, but if you're honest with yourself you need to acknowledge that they are all answering these questions differently. That is there are contradictions between their main source documents. So, as a thinking human being with a rational mind you need to discern which one is correct/true. Which one squares with your human experience?
There is a reason why the center of islam is and always will be the middle east. There is a reason why buddhism isn't plausible in modern society. There is a reason why Christianity has spread throughout the entire world. It's because Jesus isn't for one race or culture. It is because Jesus Christ is for the whole world. It may suprise you but there are more followers of Christ today in South America, Africa, and Asia then the enitre West combined. It is because people can identify with Christ, he squares perfectly with our human condition.
Jesus Christ doesn't love you.
He didn't die for anyones sins >_<
Jesus is probably not the son of God, He is more likely the son of man >_<
Jesus is great to talk to when stoned And he makes you a hit with the ladies, provided you make everyone believe that he doesn't love them.
Its my new religion!
Beastianity
He didn't die for anyones sins >_<
Jesus is probably not the son of God, He is more likely the son of man >_<
Jesus is great to talk to when stoned And he makes you a hit with the ladies, provided you make everyone believe that he doesn't love them.
Its my new religion!
Beastianity
Jesus does love you.
He sacrificed himself on the cross for the remission of your sins.
Jesus is the Son of God, moreover He is God in human form.
Don't do drugs, they cloud your discernment and lead you into decay.
Like I said a while back to you: The first effect of not believing God is to beileve anything. You are blown about by every direction of the wind.
Still though, I love you and I'm praying for ya, kiddo. Best of luck ;)
He sacrificed himself on the cross for the remission of your sins.
Jesus is the Son of God, moreover He is God in human form.
Don't do drugs, they cloud your discernment and lead you into decay.
Like I said a while back to you: The first effect of not believing God is to beileve anything. You are blown about by every direction of the wind.
Still though, I love you and I'm praying for ya, kiddo. Best of luck ;)