This video kind of f*cked me up and changed my worldview a bit.

[IamRAMBO24]

I guess you have to be a bit smart and a deeper thinker and not like those people who are always denying this and that and saying this can't be true and blah blah and a bit slow ...

Anyways .. truely mind boggling stuff if you grasp the concepts in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuANDlrTHyI

[AlphaWolf24]

yes we are all in a very complex comp program....(think GTA Vll but on steroids)...we interact with enviroments and have feeling and emotion based on the events.

- just like GTA when people get ran over or shot they bleed to death......except we have more animations and way better graphics.

- now all we got to do is find the programmer/GOD

[IamRAMBO24]

yes we are all in a very complex comp program....(think GTA Vll but on steroids)...we interact with enviroments and have feeling and emotion based on the events.

- just like GTA when people get ran over or shot they bleed to death......except we have more animations and way better graphics.

- now all we got to do is find the programmer/GOD

Good to see someone actually taking the time to understand this concept. Kudos buddy.

I guess it is kind of like GTA, where the world you are living in is what you can dictate within your own mind since what you see is a production of your thoughts and brain and not what is in the real world if that makes any sense.

I think all the rich people and geniuses knew this a long time ago and they've been mind f*cking us to control us.

It is quite mind blowing how the video breaks everything down.

[IamRAMBO24]

- now all we got to do is find the programmer/GOD

For there to be a programmer aka GOD there has to be a level of evolution in technology, mathematics, computer science, psychology, etc. far beyond what we are capable of knowing.

This GOD has to be a civilization far beyond our evolution that thinks like us, looks like us, knows our habits and motives, and has the technological capabilities to tap into our pineal glands to dictate and create the world we live in, not to mention, trap us in this world and only allow a glimpse of another dimension through our dreams.

I think GOD truly is an alien. This is too concrete, mathematical, and concise to be spiritual. There is a formula to this all I think.

[DwadeOverLebron]

So lets enlarge our pineal gland.. the process of enlargening our brain at birth so our pineal glands can be the size of a golf ball.. this will give us a true advantage in life but you will also suffer the consequence of having large head in a small headed society.. but if this get's us closer to the pathway of different dimensions or a direct link to the all seeing eye then I say why not? let's go for it.. I'm sure experiments and studies are going on about this as we speak in a laboratory in koreas.. and by koreas I mean bof north and south..

[TheMan]

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

That vid is a crock of bull -- they take the facts in twist them into some mystical nonsense

[Faptastrophe]

Imagine that the entire existence of the universe, from the Big Bang, the formation of the solar system, to the dinosaurs, the entire history of the human race, and the forseeable future is ALL happening in a cosmic blink of an eye in the moment before the REAL universe is sucked into nothingness.

[miller-time]

That vid is a crock of bull -- they take the facts in twist them into some mystical nonsense

Pretty much. It is just pseudo-intellectual *********ion. All they are doing is taking the fact that our sensory perception of the universe is only a rough and removed approximation and saying that reality is just an illusion altogether, then they throw in some eastern religious ideas and they are home and hosed for guys like IamRambo to lap it up.

[IamRAMBO24]

Pretty much. It is just pseudo-intellectual *********ion. All they are doing is taking the fact that our sensory perception of the universe is only a rough and removed approximation and saying that reality is just an illusion altogether, then they throw in some eastern religious ideas and they are home and hosed for guys like IamRambo to lap it up.

This viewpoint is childish and lacks a philosophical foundation. These ideas have been expounded upon, debated, and pretty much held in high regard in the intellectual world from Berkeley, Hume, Hegel, and then to Kant.

It is nothing new; great thinkers have known this for years ever since Descartes utter the famous words, "I think therefore I am."

It is not that these concepts are "wrong" per se but more like your lack of understanding is completely atrocious and not worthy of serious consideration.

Stop being such a troll and let the intellectuals debate on a concept they are clearly more open to accept. F*ckin' hoodlum. Go back to your comic books and debate on whether or not wonder woman has bigger t*ts than cat woman.

[miller-time]

It is not that these concepts are "wrong" per se but more like your lack of understanding is completely atrocious and not worthy of serious consideration.

My lack of understanding? You don't even know what I know, or what I understand. What are you even talking about?

[shlver]

I stopped watching after the narrator tried to explain that the light from the candle doesn't illuminate the inside of the skull. :lol

[irondarts]

This viewpoint is childish and lacks a philosophical foundation. These ideas have been expounded upon, debated, and pretty much held in high regard in the intellectual world from Berkeley, Hume, Hegel, and then to Kant.

It is nothing new; great thinkers have known this for years ever since Descartes utter the famous words, "I think therefore I am."

It is not that these concepts are "wrong" per se but more like your lack of understanding is completely atrocious and not worthy of serious consideration.

Stop being such a troll and let the intellectuals debate on a concept they are clearly more open to accept. F*ckin' hoodlum. Go back to your comic books and debate on whether or not wonder woman has bigger t*ts than cat woman.
How could you possibly expect a intellectual debate when all you do is childishly attack anybody who has a different viewpoint then you?

[kNicKz]

http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/aa0/890/3c4/resized/ancient-aliens-invisible-something-meme-generator-aliens-979d73.jpg

[Mach_3]

I stopped watching after the narrator tried to explain that the light from the candle doesn't illuminate the inside of the skull. :lol


:roll:


It's a nice little vid (well the first half that i watched) but it doesn't explain or prove much

[shlver]

This viewpoint is childish and lacks a philosophical foundation. These ideas have been expounded upon, debated, and pretty much held in high regard in the intellectual world from Berkeley, Hume, Hegel, and then to Kant.

It is nothing new; great thinkers have known this for years ever since Descartes utter the famous words, "I think therefore I am."

It is not that these concepts are "wrong" per se but more like your lack of understanding is completely atrocious and not worthy of serious consideration.

Stop being such a troll and let the intellectuals debate on a concept they are clearly more open to accept. F*ckin' hoodlum. Go back to your comic books and debate on whether or not wonder woman has bigger t*ts than cat woman.
There is no intellectual debate to be had. If they really are trying to extend that reality is just an illusion based on the fact that our experience of reality is just a construction of our brain, then that requires a leap of faith.

[IamRAMBO24]

My lack of understanding? You don't even know what I know, or what I understand. What are you even talking about?

Have you read Descartes .. then Berkeley, then Hume, and moved on to Kant .. and if you are really a f*ckin genius, you would have read Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzche .. etc. (and no I'm not talking about cliff notes either).

The sh*t they are talking about isn't some new profound idea some redneck playing next to the pond water all of a sudden pondered upon. These ideas have been debated upon for thousands of years to reach the conclusion Kant manifested: the material reality are things in and of themselves (huge words I know) and we cannot know them for what they truly are since our perception is a by product of our mind.

Before you hate, educate yourself dumbsh*t. You sound like an elementary kid looking at a calculus book and calling it pseudo because you do not have an idea what "derivatives, integrals, functions, etc." really are.

[Budadiiii]

Didn't learn much and wasn't very exciting :confusedshrug:


future negs for the op i guess

[IamRAMBO24]

There is no intellectual debate to be had. If they really are trying to extend that reality is just an illusion based on the fact that our experience of reality is just a construction of our brain, then that requires a leap of faith.

It is a fact reality is a construction of the brain.

Kant gave a great example for noobs to truly grasp the concept: you have 5 instruments you use to view the reality you live in.

If you lose one of the instrument (for example vision) then your reality is limited to only 4 senses and you do not experience the reality we know it since you do not have the apparatus to do so.

This is because your brain uses light to create an image that you see, but without that eye, you cannot create the image, thus the reality you experience is very different from what everyone else experiences.

It is your brain that constructs that image (very similar to how it constructs a dream) and all the other 4 senses you have is also the construction of the mind.

Without the eye, then reality is just light, energy, photons, etc. but the "apparatus" (eye, ear, smell, touch, taste) is what creates matter and reality. Without the brain, reality does not exist. Period. Hence why they refer to it as an "illusion." You think it is real, but it is not really real: it is only the construction of your mind similar to how you construct a reality in your dreams.

[IamRAMBO24]

:roll:


It's a nice little vid (well the first half that i watched) but it doesn't explain or prove much

This just means you're stupid and can't fully grasp the concepts in the video. Sorry to break it to you.

[shlver]

Without the eye, then reality is just light, energy, photons, etc. but the "apparatus" (eye, ear, smell, touch, taste) is what creates matter and reality.
You just said in the first part of your sentence that reality exists outside the apparatus and then you say the apparatus creates reality. You basically contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

Without the brain, reality does not exist.
Why would our brain be required for reality to exist?

Period. Hence why they refer to it as an "illusion." You think it is real, but it is not really real: it is only the construction of your mind similar to how you construct a reality in your dreams.
What is your definition of reality? We need to have a common working definition to have a debate.

[shlver]

Have you read Descartes .. then Berkeley, then Hume, and moved on to Kant .. and if you are really a f*ckin genius, you would have read Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzche .. etc. (and no I'm not talking about cliff notes either).

The sh*t they are talking about isn't some new profound idea some redneck playing next to the pond water all of a sudden pondered upon. These ideas have been debated upon for thousands of years to reach the conclusion Kant manifested: the material reality are things in and of themselves (huge words I know) and we cannot know them for what they truly are since our perception is a by product of our mind.

Before you hate, educate yourself dumbsh*t. You sound like an elementary kid looking at a calculus book and calling it pseudo because you do not have an idea what "derivatives, integrals, functions, etc." really are.
Your bolded still has no implication on material reality. Once again, the fact that our experience of material reality is a construct of the brain does not have any implication on actual reality.

[miller-time]

Your bolded still has no implication on material reality. Once again, the fact that our experience of material reality is a construct of the brain does not have any implication on actual reality.

It is also counter to the point of the video. If the statement is correct then the arguments in the video can only be considered conjecture.

[shlver]

It is also counter to the point of the video. If the statement is correct then the arguments in the video can only be considered conjecture.
Yes, it's a leap of faith. It cannot be defended with reason.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Have you read Descartes .. then Berkeley, then Hume, and moved on to Kant .. and if you are really a f*ckin genius, you would have read Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzche .. etc. (and no I'm not talking about cliff notes either).

The sh*t they are talking about isn't some new profound idea some redneck playing next to the pond water all of a sudden pondered upon. These ideas have been debated upon for thousands of years to reach the conclusion Kant manifested: the material reality are things in and of themselves (huge words I know) and we cannot know them for what they truly are since our perception is a by product of our mind.

Before you hate, educate yourself dumbsh*t. You sound like an elementary kid looking at a calculus book and calling it pseudo because you do not have an idea what "derivatives, integrals, functions, etc." really are.

Your desperate need to have approval for your knowledge is showing.

[IamRAMBO24]

You just said in the first part of your sentence that reality exists outside the apparatus and then you say the apparatus creates reality. You basically contradicted yourself in the same sentence.

Why would our brain be required for reality to exist?

What is your definition of reality? We need to have a common working definition to have a debate.

Reality is the material world.

What is matter. It is nothing more than energy. Same with sound. It is vibrations. But what makes it sound is the ear. What makes the world real is the eye. Both these apparatuses take the "raw" materials and transmit it to the brain to create reality.

So that image that you see in front of you isn't seperate from you; it is the creation of your mind. It is the same thing as if you are dreaming: the world looks like a real material world apart from you but it is all in your head. What connects us to the same reality is a universal consciousness (or program) that we cannot know or ever be aware of. This is what Kant simply coined "the thing in itself" - which means he doesn't know what the f*ck it is and concluded can't ever be known.

I'll give it to you though, you're asking questions some of the greatest philosophical minds spent their entire lives figuring out.

[IamRAMBO24]

Your desperate need to have approval for your knowledge is showing.

I'm not even trying to find approval. Due to our habits of seeing the world and going through our entire lives learning a sh*tty kind of physics in school that has absolutely nothing to do with the world, it is simply impossible to understand these concepts overnight because most of us have been pretty much brainwashed to believe in a material world since at birth.

I lists those philosophers because you have to read them all to truly understand why our material perception is wrong. For someone to just come out and say this is pseudo is ignoring thousands of years of research that comes to the same conclusion; it is a legit premise and not something someone just pulled out of their a*s and create a video about.

[1987_Lakers]

Video is half truth. I see it as...

Material world: Illusion
Spiritual world: real

The things we feel like happiness, excitement, love etc etc are all real, while negative feelings are an illusion that stops us from growing.

Interesting how they mention that the all seeing eye is really the pineal gland. I use to think it was the eye of "satan" like some other people, but as I got older I started to think they wanted us to believe that so we can stay in fear. The Pineal Gland thing seems more likely to me, we all have a third eye that is not activated.

[shlver]

Reality is the material world.

What is matter. It is nothing more than energy.
It is not "nothing more than energy." When you get down to subatomic particles, you have to consider spin momentum and charge. Conversion from matter to energy is not just energy accounting, it abides by a lot more rules regarding momentum.

Same with sound. It is vibrations. But what makes it sound is the ear.
No the ear does not make sound, it interprets the vibrations. Our interpretation of those vibrations does not make it actual reality, only a useful modelling system that corresponds to reality. Are frequencies not discernible by the human ear not a part of material reality? That is absurd.

What makes the world real is the eye.

Both these apparatuses take the "raw" materials and transmit it to the brain to create reality.
No they don't. Once again, our interpretation of material reality is not actual reality, our brain constructed experience is only a modelling system that corresponds with reality. I gave this example in another thread. What makes something smell? It is solely the structure of the molecule that gives the interpretive experience of smell, it is NOT an actual property of the molecule. Sight and sound as well. It may or may not be a property of actual reality, just an experience constructed from wavelength and frequency information.


So that image that you see in front of you isn't seperate from you; it is the creation of your mind.
No, it is the brain's interpretation of wavelength information reflected off of what you call material reality.

It is the same thing as if you are dreaming: the world looks like a real material world apart from you but it is all in your head. What connects us to the same reality is a universal consciousness (or program) that we cannot know or ever be aware of. This is what Kant simply coined "the thing in itself" - which means he doesn't know what the f*ck it is and concluded can't ever be known.

I'll give it to you though, you're asking questions some of the greatest philosophical minds spent their entire lives figuring out.
It takes a leap of faith to say what connects us to a "same reality" is a universal consciousness or program. You cannot come to that conclusion using the fact our experience of reality is a construct of our brain. Once again, the fact that our experience of material reality is a construct of the brain does not have any implication on actual reality.

[Inactive]

What is matter. It is nothing more than energy. Consult your nearest physics professor. It's more complicated than that. And what do you mean by "nothing more than energy"? Just because it lacks mass makes it less "real" to you? Everything one touches, everything one experiences in our normal conception of reality, is a product of energy. When you bang your hand against a table, it isn't mass that's hitting you back.


What makes the world real is the eye. Both these apparatuses take the "raw" materials and transmit it to the brain to create reality.No. Our perception of the outside world is a product of our senses. We have no direct knowledge of reality. That doesn't mean that there isn't an objective world out there. If you're so convinced that there isn't, try jumping off a ledge with your eyes closed, and see if matter ceases to exist :oldlol: (disclaimer: don't)


So that image that you see in front of you isn't seperate from you; it is the creation of your mind. It is the same thing as if you are dreaming: the world looks like a real material world apart from you but it is all in your head. Yeah.


What connects us to the same reality is a universal consciousness (or program) that we cannot know or ever be aware of. This is what Kant simply coined "the thing in itself" - which means he doesn't know what the f*ck it is and concluded can't ever be known. Instead of calling it "universal consciousness", you could, like, call it by one of it's conventional names. I.E the objective world, the universe, reality.


It is a fact reality is a construction of the brain. There is no reason to think this. Perception != Reality.


Without the eye, then reality is just light, energy, photons, etc. but the "apparatus" (eye, ear, smell, touch, taste) is what creates matter and reality. There is no reason to think the eye, creates matter. From what I understand, physicists have a fairly good understanding of mass, arising from interactions between fundamental forces, and the higgs field.


Without the brain, reality does not exist. Period. Without reality, the brain does not exist. Period.

Hence why they refer to it as an "illusion." You think it is real, but it is not really real: it is only the construction of your mind similar to how you construct a reality in your dreams.The most you could say is "Our ability to know what is illusory will always be limited.". We can't have direct access to anything, everything is filtered through our senses.

[shlver]

I'm not even trying to find approval. Due to our habits of seeing the world and going through our entire lives learning a sh*tty kind of physics in school that has absolutely nothing to do with the world, it is simply impossible to understand these concepts overnight because most of us have been pretty much brainwashed to believe in a material world since at birth.

I lists those philosophers because you have to read them all to truly understand why our material perception is wrong. For someone to just come out and say this is pseudo is ignoring thousands of years of research that comes to the same conclusion; it is a legit premise and not something someone just pulled out of their a*s and create a video about.
Why do you have to read all those philosophers' works to truly understand our subjective experience is not a perfect representation of objective reality?

[OhNoTimNoSho]

I'm not even trying to find approval. Due to our habits of seeing the world and going through our entire lives learning a sh*tty kind of physics in school that has absolutely nothing to do with the world, it is simply impossible to understand these concepts overnight because most of us have been pretty much brainwashed to believe in a material world since at birth.

I lists those philosophers because you have to read them all to truly understand why our material perception is wrong. For someone to just come out and say this is pseudo is ignoring thousands of years of research that comes to the same conclusion; it is a legit premise and not something someone just pulled out of their a*s and create a video about.
Not sure why you keep defending a video clearly made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You seem like an intelligent dude, but what you're arguing is semantics of logic. No one is directly disagreeing with you about what you're saying, the video itself uses solid facts and ideas, it just presents them in this retarted way that Joe Schmo in Alabama can be like OH WOW THATS SO COOL. Relax, take a step back.

[miller-time]

Not sure why you keep defending a video clearly made to appeal to the lowest common denominator. You seem like an intelligent dude, but what you're arguing is semantics of logic. No one is directly disagreeing with you about what you're saying, the video itself uses solid facts and ideas, it just presents them in this retarted way that Joe Schmo in Alabama can be like OH WOW THATS SO COOL. Relax, take a step back.

Some of it does. And some of it is just conspiracy speculation (watch until the end they start talking about fluoride and other additives being given to us for some anti-spiritual agenda).

[Math2]

It is a fact reality is a construction of the brain.

Kant gave a great example for noobs to truly grasp the concept: you have 5 instruments you use to view the reality you live in.

If you lose one of the instrument (for example vision) then your reality is limited to only 4 senses and you do not experience the reality we know it since you do not have the apparatus to do so.

This is because your brain uses light to create an image that you see, but without that eye, you cannot create the image, thus the reality you experience is very different from what everyone else experiences.

It is your brain that constructs that image (very similar to how it constructs a dream) and all the other 4 senses you have is also the construction of the mind.

Without the eye, then reality is just light, energy, photons, etc. but the "apparatus" (eye, ear, smell, touch, taste) is what creates matter and reality. Without the brain, reality does not exist. Period. Hence why they refer to it as an "illusion." You think it is real, but it is not really real: it is only the construction of your mind similar to how you construct a reality in your dreams.

Bullshit. Nothing exists except energy, or photons, and light? Yeah right.

[Mach_3]

This just means you're stupid and can't fully grasp the concepts in the video. Sorry to break it to you.


Your girl must not be giving you none huh :lol


http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/sp/image/1342/17/1342173707738.jpg


Edit: Oh and like everyone else has been telling you in this thread, this video doesn't prove a damn thing

[MetsPackers]

This viewpoint is childish and lacks a philosophical foundation. These ideas have been expounded upon, debated, and pretty much held in high regard in the intellectual world from Berkeley, Hume, Hegel, and then to Kant.

It is nothing new; great thinkers have known this for years ever since Descartes utter the famous words, "I think therefore I am."

It is not that these concepts are "wrong" per se but more like your lack of understanding is completely atrocious and not worthy of serious consideration.

Stop being such a troll and let the intellectuals debate on a concept they are clearly more open to accept. F*ckin' hoodlum. Go back to your comic books and debate on whether or not wonder woman has bigger t*ts than cat woman.

:roll: All I gotta say is WOW

As someone who's double major is philosophy I am fully qualified to tell you that you're a fvcking idiot and don't even understand fundamental philosophical logic enough to actually be talking here.

And really nice arrogant first post coming from one of the more renowned retards of the OTC; kudos :applause:

[IamRAMBO24]

:roll: All I gotta say is WOW

As someone who's double major is philosophy I am fully qualified to tell you that you're a fvcking idiot and don't even understand fundamental philosophical logic enough to actually be talking here.

And really nice arrogant first post coming from one of the more renowned retards of the OTC; kudos :applause:

The problem is you major in Philosophy. Philosophy should never be a major. It is the pursuit of wisdom: those who pursue it have to love it or it is worthless and people who pursue it through education aren't doing it for love.

You can't gain wisdom through education. Period.

[IamRAMBO24]

Bullshit. Nothing exists except energy, or photons, and light? Yeah right.

Yup.

That is exactly what I am saying. The world consist of nothing more than energy, light, vibrations, and photons.

It is your mind that creates matter. It is your mind that creates music. It is your mind that creates taste. It is your mind that creates feelings.

This is why reality changes when you are sick, feeling good, sad, high off your ass, etc. Reality changes based on the perception your mind produces.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

You can't gain wisdom through education. Period.
:biggums:... can't?

[IamRAMBO24]

Why do you have to read all those philosophers' works to truly understand our subjective experience is not a perfect representation of objective reality?

You have to read Descartes to understand his deductive method to arrive at one conclusion he simply cannot argue against: I think therefore I am.

Then after that, you have to read Berkeley to understand why he destroyed matter with this concept.

Then you have to move on to Hume who disregards matter and everything along with it.

Then Kant who said yes there is a reality apart from us, but it is nothing more than energy, light, photons, etc. and it is our mind that actively creates the material world (5 senses).

Don't forget, you've been brainwashed by a sh*tty education to believe in a material world that has nothing to do with reality. It is going to take another 5 years of hardcore reading to change that concept imbedded in your mind. Start learning.

[IamRAMBO24]

:biggums:... can't?

There is a difference between education and wisdom. Wisdom requires experience of life and a love for learning.

Education only requires memorizing insignificant facts and repeating it on a test.

[MetsPackers]

The problem is you major in Philosophy. Philosophy should never be a major. It is the pursuit of wisdom: those who pursue it have to love it or it is worthless and people who pursue it through education aren't doing it for love.

You can't gain wisdom through education. Period.

You know, i've noticed over the last few years that the trademark believe of all ignorant pseudo-intellectual elitists is that they think any form of "outside the box" thinking has philosophical value. This is not true in any way. Anybody can take an abstract idea and run with it and try to apply it to the real world; this yields no true intellectual reward; but instead provides the idiots I speak of with a feeling of superiority.

So the fact that I actually study something is a problem? LOL, my approach is incorrect? I think you have it backwards, guy. Here's a hint too; if you say something and everybody calls you an idiot, they're probably right. I also find that people with true knowledge and intellectual thirst don't feel the need to belittle others simply for not knowing what they know. It's like you think knowledge is an exclusive club, when it comes in many forms and ideas. You however, are the opposite: very closed minded, immediately rejecting any opinion that is not consistent with your own and unable to see your own flaws. This kind of naivety is another trademark of the uninformed pseudo-intellectual.

But I shouldn't even bother, I mean, it's not like I study it on a higher level than you anything :roll: And actually study at thay

[IamRAMBO24]

Inactive:

"Without reality, the brain does not exist. Period."

I am talking about human consciousness. Reality itself is nothing more than photons, energy, vibrations, strings, etc. It is the human brain that creates the reality we see and experience. The proof is simply looking at the galaxies and seeing it as nothing more than bundles of energy and light. There has to be some sort of mathematical "program" that instructs the brain to use the light and energy to create this reality. This is why all laws in physics can be explain through mathematics, thus this reality (human consciousness) cannot exist without the brain otherwise it will just be a bundle of energy like you see in some planets and the stars you look up at night.

[IamRAMBO24]

But I shouldn't even bother, I mean, it's not like I study it on a higher level than you anything :roll: And actually study at thay

This I can't argue with.

[daily]

There is a difference between education and wisdom. Wisdom requires experience of life and a love for learning.

Education only requires memorizing insignificant facts and repeating it on a test.

You're defining education as something only available at school

Wisdom comes from a collection of many places only one of them being life experience which BTW is another form of education.

[IamRAMBO24]

You know, i've noticed over the last few years that the trademark believe of all ignorant pseudo-intellectual elitists is that they think any form of "outside the box" thinking has philosophical value. This is not true in any way. Anybody can take an abstract idea and run with it and try to apply it to the real world; this yields no true intellectual reward; but instead provides the idiots I speak of with a feeling of superiority.

So the fact that I actually study something is a problem? LOL, my approach is incorrect? I think you have it backwards, guy. Here's a hint too; if you say something and everybody calls you an idiot, they're probably right. I also find that people with true knowledge and intellectual thirst don't feel the need to belittle others simply for not knowing what they know. It's like you think knowledge is an exclusive club, when it comes in many forms and ideas. You however, are the opposite: very closed minded, immediately rejecting any opinion that is not consistent with your own and unable to see your own flaws. This kind of naivety is another trademark of the uninformed pseudo-intellectual.

But I shouldn't even bother, I mean, it's not like I study it on a higher level than you anything :roll: And actually study at thay

As a philosopher major, how come I have not seen even the slightest hint of a philosophical way of thinking ..

I call bullsh*t on this.

[IamRAMBO24]

You're defining education as something only available at school

Wisdom comes from a collection of many places only one of them being life experience which BTW is another form of education.

LOL are you f*ckin kidding .. life experience is education.

Too funny buddy.

Education is anything but life experience; education is nothing more than memorizing a bunch of facts and repeating it back like a parrot. It has nothing to do with true wisdom.

[daily]

LOL are you f*ckin kidding .. life experience is education.

Too funny buddy.

Education is anything but life experience; education is nothing more than memorizing a bunch of facts and repeating it back like a parrot. It has nothing to do with true wisdom.

Wisdom is also the ability to learn from others and not keep a close minded view. It's clear you think of yourself very highly and have no respect for others which isn't very wise at all.

Good luck to you, I'll waste none of my time on a fraud like you

[IamRAMBO24]

Inactive:

"Instead of calling it "universal consciousness", you could, like, call it by one of it's conventional names. I.E the objective world, the universe, reality."

Calling it an objective world is a misuse of the term since, like you and Shivers agreed, the objective world is nothing more than an interpretation of the mind, therefore there is no objectivity in matter. There are only laws and mathematics that feeds the mind information to create the world we see and experience. Matter does not exist, so to call it "objective" is an utterly deceptive misuse of the term.

Universal consciousness sounds more legit: we all view the same reality based on a "program" (or whatever you want to call it) that connects our consciousness to view the same dimension of reality. This might seem like there is a world apart from us since everybody else is seeing the same thing, but it is more legit to say we are viewing the same thing since we are restricted to the same mathematical program that instructs our mind to see the same thing.

[IamRAMBO24]

Wisdom is also the ability to learn from others and not keep a close minded view. It's clear you think of yourself very highly and have no respect for others which isn't very wise at all.

Good luck to you, I'll waste none of my time on a fraud like you

Wrong.

Wisdom is the pursuit of the highest ideas based on experience and the best books (which isn't founded in education). I can even argue wisdom can never be found in education based on 3 premises:

1. The ideas they teach are f*ckin stupid and outdated (for example, Newtonian physics which is 300 years old and has already been disproven by both Einstein and Quantum Physics).

2. It restricts you to a text book and rarely allows you to learn through life experience, which is hands down the best learning you will get in life.

3. It does not take philosophy seriously. The evolution of intellectual thinking is through philosophy: all the greatest ideas came from this field (yes even Science and all the greatest thinkers derived their theories laid out by the philosophical thinkers). Without Philosophy, we can't evolve intellectually and the fact that education has completely disregarded this important aspect of evolution makes it a crime against knowledge itself.

[miller-time]

Calling it an objective world is a misuse of the term since, like you and Shivers agreed, the objective world is nothing more than an interpretation of the mind, therefore there is no objectivity in matter. There are only laws and mathematics that feeds the mind information to create the world we see and experience. Matter does not exist, so to call it "objective" is an utterly deceptive misuse of the term.

The objective world is the world that exists outside and independent of the mind, and the subjective world is our perceived or approximated version of that world.

[IamRAMBO24]

And the part about learning from others, yes, when someone comes up with an awesome, highly intuitive idea, I will have the highest respect for him, but as is, it is not such a good idea to always learn from others because most people are dumb as f*ck.

[IamRAMBO24]

The objective world is the world that exists outside and independent of the mind, and the subjective world is our perceived or approximated version of that world.

Ya keep on holding on to the outdated Newtonian Physics. We're in the 20th century homie; time to update your thinking.

[MetsPackers]

As a philosopher major, how come I have not seen even the slightest hint of a philosophical way of thinking ..

I call bullsh*t on this.

Because you are extremely ignorant and do not understand philosphy in any way. Your argument is all over the place here guy. The reason everyone is calling you a retard here is because you think that visualizing an abstract concept grants you superior knowledge in some way; which really just shows how little you know. Ex: "OMG I can imagine that we are all not real and we are only what we percieve! omg omg im so smart now this is crazy it's like im in the matrix!!" No, idiot, you're not in the matrix. Just because you can perform a small exercise of theoretical logic in order to visualize an abstract concept does not make you intellectually talented in any way.

For fvcks sake this is the kind of stuff I used to think about when I was a little kid. Small observations in perception such as "I wonder if colors schemes are different through different eyes, or if the world looks completely different through other eyes." I bet shyt like that blows your mind when in reality almost everybody has thought about it before. And if dumb shyt like this is the strength of your "intellect", then you're a fvcking idiot because this sort of thing only serves to perform an exercise in theoretical logic with no real application. You can believe that aliens control and guide us or whatever; but guess what? I garuentee that in your lifetime nothing in that video will ever be verified or proven; making it's "knowledge" completely useless. You really seem hung up on that fact that you think you've stumbled on some genius shyt here but you really haven't. It's a dumbass Youtube video that I could point out infinite flaws in. You want to know where there's real knowledge? Books. Ever heard of them. Gtf off youtube you community college pseudo-intellectual hipster, before another simple observation blows your mind :roll:

And furthermore, "how come I can not seen evidence of philosophical thinking". Why? Because you wouldn't know it if it punched you in the face you fvcking retard :roll:

Please, demonstrate exactly how I do or do not think philosophically; I dare you to attempt to define that. Does it require that I post retarded useless threads and claim to be a philosopher? :roll: Because those are the only qualifications you meet :roll:
I;m comfortable in the fact that I actually do go to school and don't pull knowledge out of my ass and apply an unfounded superiority complex to it.

LMAO this n!gga think's he's Plato watchin Youtube vids fvck outta here :roll:
If you're gona post dumb shyt like this atleast don't try to belittle others when they tell you it's stupid, it just makes you look defensive and scared

[shlver]

Inactive:

"Instead of calling it "universal consciousness", you could, like, call it by one of it's conventional names. I.E the objective world, the universe, reality."

Calling it an objective world is a misuse of the term since, like you and Shivers agreed, the objective world is nothing more than an interpretation of the mind, therefore there is no objectivity in matter. There are only laws and mathematics that feeds the mind information to create the world we see and experience. Matter does not exist, so to call it "objective" is an utterly deceptive misuse of the term.

Universal consciousness sounds more legit: we all view the same reality based on a "program" (or whatever you want to call it) that connects our consciousness to view the same dimension of reality. This might seem like there is a world apart from us since everybody else is seeing the same thing, but it is more legit to say we are viewing the same thing since we are restricted to the same mathematical program that instructs our mind to see the same thing.
No it's not. Subjective reality is the brain's interpretation of objective reality.

[shlver]

You have to read Descartes to understand his deductive method to arrive at one conclusion he simply cannot argue against: I think therefore I am.

Then after that, you have to read Berkeley to understand why he destroyed matter with this concept.

Then you have to move on to Hume who disregards matter and everything along with it.

Then Kant who said yes there is a reality apart from us, but it is nothing more than energy, light, photons, etc. and it is our mind that actively creates the material world (5 senses).

Don't forget, you've been brainwashed by a sh*tty education to believe in a material world that has nothing to do with reality. It is going to take another 5 years of hardcore reading to change that concept imbedded in your mind. Start learning.
Are you serious? :lol If you really read up on all of those philosphers why did it take this video to "**** you up and change your viewpoint on life?" :roll:

[IamRAMBO24]

Because you are extremely ignorant and do not understand philosphy in any way. Your argument is all over the place here guy. The reason everyone is calling you a retard here is because you think that visualizing an abstract concept grants you superior knowledge in some way; which really just shows how little you know. Ex: "OMG I can imagine that we are all not real and we are only what we percieve! omg omg im so smart now this is crazy it's like im in the matrix!!" No, idiot, you're not in the matrix. Just because you can perform a small exercise of theoretical logic in order to visualize an abstract concept does not make you intellectually talented in any way.

For fvcks sake this is the kind of stuff I used to think about when I was a little kid. Small observations in perception such as "I wonder if colors schemes are different through different eyes, or if the world looks completely different through other eyes." I bet shyt like that blows your mind when in reality almost everybody has thought about it before. And if dumb shyt like this is the strength of your "intellect", then you're a fvcking idiot because this sort of thing only serves to perform an exercise in theoretical logic with no real application. You can believe that aliens control and guide us or whatever; but guess what? I garuentee that in your lifetime nothing in that video will ever be verified or proven; making it's "knowledge" completely useless. You really seem hung up on that fact that you think you've stumbled on some genius shyt here but you really haven't. It's a dumbass Youtube video that I could point out infinite flaws in. You want to know where there's real knowledge? Books. Ever heard of them. Gtf off youtube you community college pseudo-intellectual hipster, before another simple observation blows your mind :roll:

And furthermore, "how come I can not seen evidence of philosophical thinking". Why? Because you wouldn't know it if it punched you in the face you fvcking retard :roll:

Please, demonstrate exactly how I do or do not think philosophically; I dare you to attempt to define that. Does it require that I post retarded useless threads and claim to be a philosopher? :roll: Because those are the only qualifications you meet :roll:
I;m comfortable in the fact that I actually do go to school and don't pull knowledge out of my ass and apply an unfounded superiority complex to it.

LMAO this n!gga think's he's Plato watchin Youtube vids fvck outta here :roll:
If you're gona post dumb shyt like this atleast don't try to belittle others when they tell you it's stupid, it just makes you look defensive and scared

I actually find your insults funny. I still don't think you have much of a philosphical mind though:

1. You have a hard time putting thoughts into your own words and it sounds like you are only repeating ideas like a parrot, which is probably the outcome of your "educational mind."

2. You have no idea what philosophy really is about.

You are intelligent, I'll give you that, but that is not saying much.

[IamRAMBO24]

No it's not. Subjective reality is the brain's interpretation of objective reality.

Ok you are smart. I will cave in on this statement because it is based on a circular sense of logic: the brain creates reality, reality creates the brain. There is really no definite conclusion to this since one needs the other and vice versa.

[shlver]

Ya keep on holding on to the outdated Newtonian Physics. We're in the 20th century homie; time to update your thinking.
Newton was not wrong. He was correct within the limits of what he was able to measure. Einstein only defined those limits and described the circumstances outside those limits.

[shlver]

Ok you are smart. I will cave in on this statement because it is based on a circular sense of logic: the brain creates reality, reality creates the brain. There is really no definite conclusion to this since one needs the other and vice versa.
Nope. The brain doesn't create reality. It interprets reality. Once again, the fact that our experience is a construct of the brain has no bearing on the nature or source of objective reality.

[IamRAMBO24]

Are you serious? :lol If you really read up on all of those philosphers why did it take this video to "**** you up and change your viewpoint on life?" :roll:

The holographic theory, created by Bohm, is a fairly new concept and kind of reiterated what I have been studying for years to a more modern Science, so it is profound nonetheless.

I predict in a hundred years this will be the new accepted view of reality since the mass population is slow as f*ck.

[IamRAMBO24]

Newton was not wrong. He was correct within the limits of what he was able to measure. Einstein only defined those limits and described the circumstances outside those limits.

You're just being nice to Newton; Einstein totally obliterated Newton. He didn't even lube when he f*cked him in the ass.

[IamRAMBO24]

Nope. The brain doesn't create reality. It interprets reality. Once again, the fact that our experience is a construct of the brain has no bearing on the nature or source of objective reality.

The brain interprets reality based on a mathematical program to instruct the brain to perceive reality. This is why Newton and Einstein had to result to mere formulas to describe the material world, so without the program, there would be no reality, thus reality won't exist without a collective human consciousness which the brain is needed to interpret.

Now if you can explain who wrote this program or why it has been written will make you the greatest genius of the next century.

[Stuckey]

this is some sh1t i pondered about when i was 9

op is a fakkit

[shlver]

The holographic theory, created by Bohm, is a fairly new concept and kind of reiterated what I have been studying for years to a more modern Science, so it is profound nonetheless.

I predict in a hundred years this will be the new accepted view of reality since the mass population is slow as f*ck.
I can't even find a wiki article on the holographic theory. Please post literature on the subject.

You're just being nice to Newton; Einstein totally obliterated Newton. He didn't even lube when he f*cked him in the ass.
You're obviously trolling. Newtonian physics is a very good description and was utilized by Einstein to specifically formulate his own theory to tend to newtonian gravity in a weak field. In that sense, it was a building block used by Einstein to formulate general relativity.

[shlver]

The brain interprets reality based on a mathematical program to instruct the brain to perceive reality. This is why Newton and Einstein had to result to mere formulas to describe the material world, so without the program, there would be no reality, thus reality won't exist without a collective human consciousness which the brain is needed to interpret.

Now if you can explain who wrote this program or why it has been written will make you the greatest genius of the next century.
I think you're either very gullible or just trolling. I can't tell, but there is no point responding to you because you go off on metaphysical tangents that cannot be debated.

[miller-time]

I can't even find a wiki article on the holographic theory. Please post literature on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_paradigm

[DFish]

The brain interprets reality based on a mathematical program

Stick to conspiracy theories, numbnuts.

[Scoooter]

Well, this thread got off to a bad start due to the OP's rep around here, and the first few seconds of that vid are kind of weird, but the idea that the universe is simulated isn't for crackpots. My own etiological and telelogical beliefs tend to lean in that direction.

The Simulation Argument. (http://www.simulation-argument.com/)

Nick Bostrom (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html) has probably the most well known and concise argument on the matter.

Jaan Tallinn lays it out quite elegantly, I think. This was my favorite TED-type presentation from last year. (http://fora.tv/2012/10/14/Jaan_Tallinn_Why_Now_A_Quest_in_Metaphysics)

You may have to familiarize yourself with away few other concepts before you wade too heavily into it, but there's a wealth of scholarly musings out there, with more popping up every day.

[IamRAMBO24]

You're obviously trolling. Newtonian physics is a very good description and was utilized by Einstein to specifically formulate his own theory to tend to newtonian gravity in a weak field. In that sense, it was a building block used by Einstein to formulate general relativity.

Again, you are being nice to Newton. And it is arguable that Einstein did build upon him, but the point still stands: why is education emphasizing greatly on an outdated idea when there are newer and better ideas out there that have completely disprove the conception of reality proposed by the classical theorists ...

Education physics is bullsh*t by f*ckin the students (and holding them back) with this caveman sh*t.

[IamRAMBO24]

Stick to conspiracy theories, numbnuts.

Trust me I will.

[IamRAMBO24]

Well, this thread got off to a bad start due to the OP's rep around here, and the first few seconds of that vid are kind of weird, but the idea that the universe is simulated isn't for crackpots. My own etiological and telelogical beliefs tend to lean in that direction.

The Simulation Argument. (http://www.simulation-argument.com/)

Nick Bostrom (http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html) has probably the most well known and concise argument on the matter.

Jaan Tallinn lays it out quite elegantly, I think. This was my favorite TED-type presentation from last year. (http://fora.tv/2012/10/14/Jaan_Tallinn_Why_Now_A_Quest_in_Metaphysics)

You may have to familiarize yourself with away few other concepts before you wade too heavily into it, but there's a wealth of scholarly musings out there, with more popping up every day.

Good sh*t. I enjoyed reading and watching it. Thanks.

[miller-time]

Good sh*t. I enjoyed reading and watching it. Thanks.

How can you read a paper and watch a 30 minute video in 11 minutes?

[IamRAMBO24]

How can you read a paper and watch a 30 minute video in 11 minutes?

5 minutes to read the paper; 10 minutes in the video and already liking it.

[shlver]

Again, you are being nice to Newton. And it is arguable that Einstein did build upon him, but the point still stands: why is education emphasizing greatly on an outdated idea when there are newer and better ideas out there that have completely disprove the conception of reality proposed by the classical theorists ...

Education physics is bullsh*t by f*ckin the students (and holding them back) with this caveman sh*t.
Argue it then. Let's hear your argument.:lol

[IamRAMBO24]

Argue it then. Let's hear your argument.:lol

Argue what .. why Newton's view of reality is complete bullsh*t .. oh that's easy.

[MetsPackers]

I actually find your insults funny. I still don't think you have much of a philosphical mind though:

1. You have a hard time putting thoughts into your own words and it sounds like you are only repeating ideas like a parrot, which is probably the outcome of your "educational mind."

2. You have no idea what philosophy really is about.

You are intelligent, I'll give you that, but that is not saying much.

No, YOU do not understand what philosophy is about so i will attempt to now breakdown the difference between this bullshyt and true philosophy.

Ex of philosophy: the concept of AUM in an eastern religion (i forget which one) which seeks to explain the three forms of human consciousness and how combined they represent the human interpretation of of God together. Why is this philosophy? Because it seeks to materialize an abstract concept through a theoretical represntation of human consciousness, and to rationalize the concept of a different plane on which God can exist outside of ours. That is just a very brief overview

Now

Ex of Not philosophy: trying to justify that aliens run the universe simply by toying with the definition of perception to essentially say that anything you believe can be consider r, which even you woul ot agre with. Why is it not philosophy? Because it has no literal context, and does not seek to explain anything, but is simply an expansion of you imagination. Congrats, you are creative!

I had to write this one on my phone caus eim out getting weed but when i get back ll explain it further if you still dont get it

[shlver]

Argue what .. why Newton's view of reality is complete bullsh*t .. oh that's easy.
No... Argue what you said is arguable. That gr and newtonian gravity are identical in the lower limit of gravitational fields and velocities.

[Inactive]

Ok you are smart. I will cave in on this statement because it is based on a circular sense of logic: the brain creates reality, reality creates the brain. There is really no definite conclusion to this since one needs the other and vice versa.Why do you insist that the brain creates reality? That's quite an assumption. The brain interprets sensory information, inferring characteristics of the objective world. The "picture" we get is the way we make sense of that raw data. That picture is always somewhat inaccurate. It can be distorted(illusion), and even fabricated (dream/hallucination). But the objective world stays the same, no matter how that subjective picture changes (as evidenced by the fact that hallucinations don't physically interact with anything, and can't be perceived by others).

If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.


The brain interprets reality based on a mathematical program to instruct the brain to perceive reality.It depends on what you mean by this. The computational functions of the brain can presumably be mathematically modeled (some have been already), but no external "mathematical program" is required for it to function. Mathematics are just the tool that we use to describe what's physically happening.


This is why Newton and Einstein had to result to mere formulas to describe the material world, As long as the universe behaves in a consistent, nonrandom way, you should be able to describe it with mathematics.


so without the program, there would be no reality, thus reality won't exist without a collective human consciousness which the brain is needed to interpret.So, you're saying that without the brain to interpret, and describe the behavior of the universe, there would be no universe? That's like saying "Without a statistician to track Kobe's FG%, Kobe would cease to make field goals".

[miller-time]

So, you're saying that without the brain to interpret, and describe the behavior of the universe, there would be no universe? That's like saying "Without a statistician to track Kobe's FG%, Kobe would cease to make field goals".

That is not a bad analogy. :cheers:

Although can we replace Kobe with any other player? I don't like Kobe.

[daily]

I tried to give it (the video) a reasonable amount of respect but when boredom sank in I traced the video back to these folks.

http://www.holographic-disclosure.com/

I'm sorry but these kids are just another version of your standard off the wall conspiracy nuts marketing themselves to anyone that will click the paypal link.

So many gullible people in this world willing to "buy" into this crap so they can feel special.

OP maybe quoting philosophers but the more fitting quote for this stuff is "There's a sucker born every minute"

[miller-time]

I tried to give it (the video) a reasonable amount of respect but when boredom sank in I traced the video back to these folks.

http://www.holographic-disclosure.com/

I'm sorry but these kids are just another version of your standard off the wall conspiracy nuts marketing themselves to anyone that will click the paypal link.

So many gullible people in this world willing to "buy" into this crap so they can feel special.

OP maybe quoting philosophers but the more fitting quote for this stuff is "There's a sucker born every minute"

I honestly would love to know how much people have given them. They have a $1000 dollar option. Do you think someone has ever clicked it?

[IamRAMBO24]

Why do you insist that the brain creates reality? That's quite an assumption. The brain interprets sensory information, inferring characteristics of the objective world. The "picture" we get is the way we make sense of that raw data. That picture is always somewhat inaccurate. It can be distorted(illusion), and even fabricated (dream/hallucination). But the objective world stays the same, no matter how that subjective picture changes (as evidenced by the fact that hallucinations don't physically interact with anything, and can't be perceived by others).

If you disagree, please explain your reasoning.

It depends on what you mean by this. The computational functions of the brain can presumably be mathematically modeled (some have been already), but no external "mathematical program" is required for it to function. Mathematics are just the tool that we use to describe what's physically happening.

As long as the universe behaves in a consistent, nonrandom way, you should be able to describe it with mathematics.

So, you're saying that without the brain to interpret, and describe the behavior of the universe, there would be no universe? That's like saying "Without a statistician to track Kobe's FG%, Kobe would cease to make field goals".

Look, these aren't my ideas; these are the ideas of Kant and Bohm.

Y'know that guy name "Einstein." He pretty much stole the ideas from Kant on space and time and came up with a plagiarized version he called general theory of relativity, oh yea, and he also went to Bohm for advice and suggestions when he was stuck on an idea.

Kant was the guy who came up with the theory that laid the foundation of the holographic universe, while Bohm was the one who invented it by turning it into a Science.

So these concepts aren't from me, but rather from some pretty wicked geniuses who have proven they know what the f*ck they are talking about.

Hey if you think you are smarter than they are, have a go at it; maybe you will be the next great genius of the century. More power to you my friend.

So instead of asking me to educate you, why don't you take the time out and study them .. and once you have fully grasp their ideas, try to evolve those ideas and come up with something new. I'm rooting for you.

[Timmy D for MVP]

This thread. Jokes.

IamRambo you have become quite an amusing character.

[IamRAMBO24]

Quote from Kant:

"Kant asserts that experience is based both upon the perception of external objects and a priori knowledge.[36] The external world, he writes, provides those things that we sense. It is our mind, though, that processes this information about the world and gives it order, allowing us to comprehend it. Our mind supplies the conditions of space and time to experience objects."


Translation:

A priori knowledge, which is an idea, concept, thought (aka construct of the brain) is needed for us to experience the reality we live in. Although we sense the material world we live in, it is our mind that takes the information and processes into a coherent form of reality that makes it real. Even space and time is a construct of the mind.

Note* his theories on space and time was completely ripped off by Einstein and lead to a modern physics we know as "Quantum Mechanics" today.

This guy aint stupid. He knew something 300 years ago we are beginning to finally understand; by intellectual standards compare to Newton: Kant would be in his 10th year of medical school finishing up a new profound academic thesis while Newton is still in pre-school struggling with the alphabet.

[shlver]

This thread. Jokes.

IamRambo you have become quite an amusing character.
I'm pretty sure he's trolling.
Who says Einstein "didn't use lube when he ****ed Newton in the ass" or general relativity is nothing more than plagiarized work from a 17th century philosopher?

[shlver]

No... Argue what you said is arguable. That gr and newtonian gravity are identical in the lower limit of gravitational fields and velocities.
Are you going to respond to this IamRambo? or are you just going to ignore it because you don't actually know what GR entails?

[Inactive]

Look, these aren't my ideas; these are the ideas of Kant and Bohm.No, they are your ideas. Or at least ideas which you got from other people who interpreted that work, in their own way.

It's easy to misunderstand a philosopher, and feel like he's confirming your own world view. You have to carefully peruse their work, understand how they define each term, and rigorously examine each step in their argument, if you want to achieve understanding. Reading their work is not enough. You also have to keep in mind that you don't have to actually be right about anything to be an important philosopher.

You can also have a lot of completely baseless, demonstrably incorrect personal opinions, and still be a productive physicist. You can do good work for a while, and then go off in some crazy direction, which leads to nothing (Newton with alchemy for instance). Having a big name doesn't make any difference, if you can't experimentally verify your theories.


Y'know that guy name "Einstein." He pretty much stole the ideas from Kant on space and time and came up with a plagiarized version he called general theory of relativity, oh yea, and he also went to Bohm for advice and suggestions when he was stuck on an idea. What ideas did Einstein steal from Kant?

[Inactive]

Quote from Kant:

"Kant asserts that experience is based both upon the perception of external objects and a priori knowledge.[36] The external world, he writes, provides those things that we sense. It is our mind, though, that processes this information about the world and gives it order, allowing us to comprehend it. Our mind supplies the conditions of space and time to experience objects."


Translation:

A priori knowledge, which is an idea, concept, thought (aka construct of the brain) is needed for us to experience the reality we live in. Although we sense the material world we live in, it is our mind that takes the information and processes into a coherent form of reality Everyone in this thread has acknowledged this.



Even space and time is a construct of the mind. This is the part that everyone wants you to explain. The statement "The concepts space and time are products of the mind" might follow from the above. The statement "Space and time, the physical properties of the universe, follow from the mind" does not.


Note* his theories on space and time was completely ripped off by Einstein and lead to a modern physics we know as "Quantum Mechanics" today.Please elaborate.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

So what ive gathered so far is that IamRAMBO24 thinks he is on the verge of a philosophical and perceptual revolution, and that he is also right there with the greatest thinkers of our time.

Nice man, you sound like a cool guy.

[Mr Know It All]

Pretty much. It is just pseudo-intellectual *********ion. All they are doing is taking the fact that our sensory perception of the universe is only a rough and removed approximation and saying that reality is just an illusion altogether, then they throw in some eastern religious ideas and they are home and hosed for guys like IamRambo to lap it up.

Bang on.

There's nothing worse than being at a party and some stoner walks up and starts blurting this shit out of his mouth. It's just another way people like to feel enlightened, and by spewing this stuff its a way to puff up their own ego.

[ace23]

If you're so convinced that there isn't, try jumping off a ledge with your eyes closed, and see if matter ceases to exist :oldlol: (disclaimer: don't)

He's still using his senses if he feels that though.

[Raymone]

I guess you have to be a bit smart and a deeper thinker and not like those people who are always denying this and that and saying this can't be true and blah blah and a bit slow ...

Anyways .. truely mind boggling stuff if you grasp the concepts in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuANDlrTHyI

Boggles the mind. Truely.

[MadeFromDust]

Kolby will never be as great as LBJ. He's got some kind of genetic defect making him susceptible to injuries whereas LBJ is bigboned and healthy as an ox

[Theoo]

help

[Bosnian Sajo]

No, YOU do not understand what philosophy is about so i will attempt to now breakdown the difference between this bullshyt and true philosophy.

Ex of philosophy: the concept of AUM in an eastern religion (i forget which one) which seeks to explain the three forms of human consciousness and how combined they represent the human interpretation of of God together. Why is this philosophy? Because it seeks to materialize an abstract concept through a theoretical represntation of human consciousness, and to rationalize the concept of a different plane on which God can exist outside of ours. That is just a very brief overview

Now

Ex of Not philosophy: trying to justify that aliens run the universe simply by toying with the definition of perception to essentially say that anything you believe can be consider r, which even you woul ot agre with. Why is it not philosophy? Because it has no literal context, and does not seek to explain anything, but is simply an expansion of you imagination. Congrats, you are creative!

I had to write this one on my phone caus eim out getting weed but when i get back ll explain it further if you still dont get it

:oldlol: I like this guy.

OP is funny af, trying to tell a guy who majored in Philosophy that he doesn't really know what philosophy is..:facepalm