This is how we know we're sick. There are many kinds of mental and physical sicknesses. There are three types of human being: those who see, those who see when they are shown, and those who do not see. This is basic logic pertaining to observation (the ability to see). Some cannot see me until they are shown, some cannot see me, and some can see. We have categorized three groups of people according to the logic of a description. Science governs who and what we are. It is who and what we are. God would be what lies beyond phenomenon (sensible perception). He would be the noumenon.
Spirit of God becomes One inside of Man
- Thread starter Cortex_Colossus
- Start date
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
And one day, we can only hope, those who see so much will also feel. The trick has long been to bring that light into manifestation
rather than to flit around,
dear little angels,
thinking you could do it better
if you were here.
rather than to flit around,
dear little angels,
thinking you could do it better
if you were here.
so how do you distinguish between people of number 4 and 2?
W
T
F
?
By reciting the Sgt. Schultz mantra.
According to the logic of a description, how do you describe people who speak to invisible unicorns that do nor really exist - but do exist in the persons mind?
I sometimes see a man on the street talking to an invisible something or other.
What if that man isn't there?
What if I think I see a man talking to an invisible unicorn that doesn't exist - but in reality, there is no man talking to an invisible unicorn that doesn't exist. He's in my mind.
Then What?
Last edited:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/myst..._smolin-1.html
A very important part of turning cosmology into a science is to understand all the implications of a seemingly trivial statement: There is nothing outside the universe. One aspect of this is that there can be no observer outside the universe. We must understand the universe in a way in which the scientific description of it is a description made and used by observers who are part of the system itself. This seems to go against the idea that the scientific view of nature is objective, and an objective description is always based on observations of a system from outside. If cosmology is to be a science, we must invent a new notion of objectivity that allows the observers of the system also to be part of it.
A very important part of turning cosmology into a science is to understand all the implications of a seemingly trivial statement: There is nothing outside the universe. One aspect of this is that there can be no observer outside the universe. We must understand the universe in a way in which the scientific description of it is a description made and used by observers who are part of the system itself. This seems to go against the idea that the scientific view of nature is objective, and an objective description is always based on observations of a system from outside. If cosmology is to be a science, we must invent a new notion of objectivity that allows the observers of the system also to be part of it.
*************
M*W: Yes! Jack Handey is the most intelligent person on Earth. I live by his wisdom!
interestingly enough, Sgt Schultz only recites that when there is something to see ....
What general principles do you apply to distinguish between a person who cannot see something factual and a person who cannot see something simply because it is non-existent?
How do you distinguish between the states of not seeing something, simply because it doesn't exist, as opposed to not seeing something, simply because one has a poor fund of knowledge/capabilities?
obviously
but how do you distinguish whether a person is not seeing something because it doesn't exist and a person who is not seeing something because they don't have the proper reservoirs of knowledge?
(Please talk in terms of general principles you would apply to make such distinctions)
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
Nicely put. I have put this as pattern recognition and how experts in various fields will recognize patterns far quicker than lay people. Often without consciously knowing how they know it.
The first thing is I must be able to distinguish if the "something" does or does not exist. Once I have established that this something exists as far as I am concerned or does not exist as far as I am concerned then I would have to discuss it's existence with the person to determine it they do or do not have the "proper reservoirs of knowledge". In some cases it seems to me that people do have the "proper reservoirs of knowledge" but are still unable to come to the proper conclusion.
Suppose I KNOW that a husband is having an affair and his wife does not know.
Initially, the wife does not know of the existence of the "other women" (proper reservoirs of knowledge) then it is reasonable that she would not be able to see (add up all his particular cues EX: perfumed clothes, blond hair from laundry, etc..) these to come to the conclusion of what I know to exist - IE the affair.
BUT, suppose I tell her.
IF she accepts this then that's it.
IF she does not accept this FACT then I'd say this is something interesting. Why?
Why is it she can not accept the FACT that her husband is cheating?
To some degree the same is true of someone who believes in Xenu or Smurfs or Allah or the invisible guy that happens to hang out with, and have long "deep" conversations that result in loud arguments with the homeless person next to Central Station.
While I can not proof there are no smurfs, there is no Xenu or Allah or invisible-Central Station hang-out dude I think the interesting thing is what people are unwilling to mentally accept given the same amount of knowledge as me.
Is it possible there are no Smurfs. YES that is possible. There is NO proof of smurfs so of course the possibility does exist that they are make believe. BUT, when someone can not accept this FACT, well, that's the same as the wife who can not accept her husband is cheating - even though it too is a FACT. (smurfs, Allah, invisible dude, Xenu etc...)
How's that for 3 min speed typing
Michale
Last edited:
Holy intransigence batman!
Is it comfy there, inside your little sphere of qualification-based denial of reality?