Red or Blue Pill?

If you were given a choice, which one would you take?

 

Neither, unless they had psychedelic properties. We each create our own truths and view of the world. The idea of an ultimate truth is flimsy.

 

Give me two of them red Motorola's.

 

If you were the creator of the universe, the ultimate truth would be known and crystal clear to you...

 

So you'd know what ech of these pills contained.....but if you were creator of the universe, would you be taking pills, that's what I wonder.

 

True. But even the truth of a "creator" would only be his/her own. Go ask a schizophrenic what their version of truth is. In the overarching scheme of humanity, ideas, language and reality; no matter what a person says, they are not any less valid than anyone else in their beliefs (so as long as they really believe them).

 

I'd take the truth, knowing that there is no truth and that this "truth" is just a more favored reality than one with limits. I'd love to fuck around a digital world all day, that would be my truth, not saving some dumb trance-city.

 

I would take both and see what happneds

 

If it was an omniscient creator, she/he would know everything though by definition.

As for belief - it doesn't matter a tiny bit if I really belive I can fly and step out of a 25th story window. The resultant splattering will occur regardless of my false belief.

 

If you were creator, you wouldn't need to take pills cause you would know the truth already. If you were not, on the other hand, taking red pill would give you access to the god's truth. Since god is the creator, he is supposedly outside of everything created, so he has an outside perspective which is logically the absolute truth, relative to the god's actual place of being. But since our world is also relative to the god's actual place of being, his relative truth would also be our relative truth, and his perspective would hold true for our immediate environment.

How can you be sure that the latter statement is true? There isn't one who believes enough to make the jump, so you never seen one who believes enough make the jump. Therefore, there is no way to know what actually happens if one who believes strongly enough makes the jump.

 

Gosh, you seem to have god pretty well pinned down there.

Although the jump from a window scenario is a rarity, there are many other examples of false beliefs held by both menatlly ill and allegedly sane people. I won't insult your intelligence by listing any as I'm sure you can think of numerous examples.

 

No, it's actually very abstract... Creator creates a creation, but the creation is exterior to the creator, so the creator is also exterior to the creation. Therefore, the creator has an outside perspective on the creation, and that perspective can only be biased based on the medium in which the creator resides and to which the creator is interior. But since creator cannot create a creation outside of the creator's medium, the creation also has to be inside the creator's medium, and therefore the creation inherits the same bias as the creation's medium has itself. Therefore, the creator's persepective will also be true within the creation, unless the creator made it so that certain parts are overridden within the creation. In which case, the truth the creator provides has to be composed of the summation of the truth pertinent to the creator's medium and any overrides defined by the creator for the creation. In any other case, it wouldn't be the truth, since it would not be equivalent to the summation.

Uh, the only examples I can think of are:
- the suicidal people who jump to liberate themselves - quite to the contrary, it's a belief into non-possibility since otherwise it wouldn't be a way of liberation, but that's not a belief of the possibility of flying
- people who are under the influence of drugs, and whose minds are therefore distorted to the point that the state of subconscious is not equivalent to the state of conscious, in which case there is not enough evidence to conclude that there was actual subconscious belief into the possibility of flying. Nowadays, there aren't many people who are in perfect mind, fully believe into the possibility of flying, and actually practice their belief...

 

There are only subjective realities. If you saw a person jump from a window and fall to their death, the situation would be real and truthful only to yourself. Even other people, who may have seen the person jump, would have their own interpretation and recollection of the event. If you hadn't seen them - the person was a complete stranger - and the event didn't make the 5:00 news, their death would not even be a part of your view of the world.

In any case, whether the person died would be inconsequential, as if they truly believed they could fly, they wouldn't be aware of the splat. You cannot place yourself in their position - you cannot experience their version of reality. Radical Islamic suicide bombers epitomise this. Sure, the rest of us ask "why would they blow themselves up?" Their belief in heaven is so strong it becomes a "given" part of their reality, ultimately no more valid than a belief in atoms or gravity.

 

What if the universe has always existed and is 'god'?

I had a friend whom I knew from childhood who went schizo at age 19. Last year, he died.

He used to have all sorts of hallucinations. Seeing people who weren't there, scenes of devils throwing people into giant mincing machines, huge spiders with the head of Margret Thatcher etc etc. These are clearly examples of false beliefs and perceptions.

 

That depends on whether there exists anything outside of the universe.
If yes, then there is an external creator of god, and the reasoning stays the same.
If not, then the universe is both the creator and the creation, and since they are one and the same, the truth applicable of the creator is also the truth of the creation. However, since everything has to be contained in something else, there is a very low probability of the answer to the above question being a 'no'.

Or, examples of having more than five senses, ey? You can neither prove nor deny that there exists a layer of the universe that "normal" people cannot see but that "schitzophrenic" or otherwise "crazy" people can. Considering that, theoretically, such layer may exist outside of our perception, there's a chance that some of the "crazy" people are not crazy but have certain abilities that most people don't. Of course, it's also a possibility that some of them may have brain malfunction that also causes the same effects, but here's a question to think about:

Considering that it is scientifically proven that one cannot imagine things that have no basis in the "real" world, how does one explain the stories about psychic people who just "know" certain things that it would be impossible to know for a normal person? Also, how does one explain certain prophecies that have been fullfilled, even though they couldn't have had a basis in the real world for causing imagination sufficient to write a prophecy? How do you explain yogi's that meditate and have visions? How do you explain dreams, in which you see something happen, and then it happens either the next day, the next year, the important part being that it actually happens?

I may be overseeing something, but there doesn't seem to be any other explanation other than that these are just examples of using senses that most people don't have or don't know how to use, the latter being more probable than the first...

 

I'd take 10 red pills and go on a wicked hardcore trip

 

The blue pill, if the "truth" that you are refferring to is the Matrix kind of truth. It pains me to say it, but I'm not that strong a person to want that.

 

That's my man!

Yes, the Matrix kind of truth... But you're much stronger than you think you are, just because you admitted that you would take a blue pill, instead of just voting or, worse yet, selecting "wtf you talking about". Just curious, what is that you would be afraid of, in the truth, if you were presented with a choice?

 

goddamn those sequels were disappointments. cook em both up and bang a truthball.

 

Those sequels were disappointments if you looked at them as purely action movies. If you consider the philosophy behind the sequels, however, you'll find that they make a few very important points. If you're interested, check this site out:

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/phi.html