If You Were GOD? - Hands on or Hands off?

Yeah and you are a fruitcake, what is so thorough about your words other than you are so thoroughly enthralled by them? i made the comment once that I like how you always considered every possible conjugation of a word but you have backed away from that approach and began picking and choosing which you were going to acknowledge based on how well you think you are doing in an argument.

You fail to acknowledge appearances may be deceiving by saying that form is always it's content. Your flame is brighter than what?

No, you will only confuse yourself.

Do I have to track for you? Not what I said.

No

 

Picking and choosing? We both choose. Take appearance for example, I remain open to its meaning, you hide within the confines of your particular version. Everything is something. What is it you think you're alluding to by saying everything's nothing in particular? Where's your native intelligence? It's not that which has you say you're not your body! lol You're no brave, and you're no chief either! You want to be dope who is not smoked? pipe your peace disrupted one! :-D Be enthralled by your words, not in thrall to them through the mere allusion that they ring true!

No, you fail to by denying that form is always its content. My flame, brighter than yours. It's not my fault! lol You say all expressions of love are maximal, and they are, but it doesn't make them the same in anything other than the sense that they 'are' expressions of love.

lol Never with you thedope. No matter how many times you repeat those lines of yours, "I am the same I am you call yourself" :-D

You never have tracked for us, and I don't mind. Save as much time as you like beaver who dams his own stream. lol

You said it appears as something else.

Well, go on then! Bring out your glasses and don't forget to fill them! Bring out your very best insect collection! lol

 

How many versions do you want, I said appearance is the way something looks and it can also be the act of performing or participating. It can be both or can can be either or depending on context. When the actor made his appearance he appeared disguised as a woman and you couldn't discern by his appearance at that juncture that he was a man.

Everything is something as I have said, but everything is no thing in particular being all things together. All things together is not represented by a thing apart.

Everywhere.

Told you I am studious. I have no need for bravery as patience brings immediate and enduring results and I am adored so I needn't be adorned with a head full of feathery fluff.

I appear as I am. You are the one posing as all that and objecting to what I say and we could move on to more interesting things than this repetitious drone of yours. You are like the scribes who follow the letter but miss the spirit. Just like you call me sick from a description I gave you that had nothing to do with me being mortally afflicted but vitally concerned. Certainly you are attempting to play the god of comprehension.

A man with dirt on his face is not a man with a face made of dirt and a con man often appears in a friendly guise.

You are mistaken in your varied weights and measures of love. All exchanges of energy are equal.

Can't see me can you.

Yes. You neglected to keep track of what it might be.

Afghanistan: Burqa-clad jihad-martyrdom suicide bombers murder policeman in attack on police HQ

You just by no means know who might be below there. And that’s the problem: the burqa and niqab should be banned as a matter if public safety. But to do so would be “racist” and “Islamophobic.” Better to be machine-gunned to death by some burly jihadist in a burqa than be “hateful,” doncha know. Even in the best of conditions, the burqa makes a female into an object of bring shame on, a touch to be hidden away. That alone should be reason for its banning.

 

Hands on; entropy stays out of the present at hand; matter. Thus it is communication which is pre-interpreted for that matter justified.

 

thedope:

lol Only the one that holds true. Everything is its appearance. There being more than meets the eye doesn't change that.

What thing apart?! Your 'but' sticks out so much it can't help but get kicked! No, your thickness, your thinking a thing in particular can be a thing apart doesn't change a thing. Or will you say it can represent a conceptual thing apart and so lends credence to your 'saying'? :-D No. Everything is everything in particular. Metaphysicians aren't profound enough to speak plainly! You'd think their being adored would help them to! lol

If you are all things, why do you say you're not your body? What are you? If you want to be nothing in particular, why engage me, me who knows we are our bodies?! lol I don't need or want a slave.

What result do you have in mind? You can wait on yourself forever if you like! :-D My heart extends to the brave. Whoever doesn't go by that name can of course still grab on as best they can! lol

You are certainly sick that you say "identification with the body inevitably leads to depression." I don't mind if you have to stand by your same old sayings. I am vital enough, spontaneously at home in my immediacy that I can move to the new, but to do so with you, well, you respond, it's just that your responses themselves lend nothing to my movement. I have to drag you! God's your thing. I must go it alone, I think, to the beautiful! Beauty resists the age, so... beautifully! Only the sick ask "For how long"? :-D

And? Everything is its appearance. Is a deceit a deceit, or isn't it?

No, you're mistaken. All exchanges of energy are equal only to themselves. Your 'argument' is for vacancy. It is void.

Your self-denial must be working.

I've neglected nothing of your power of distinction. You've neglected everything of it in your deniying that everything is its appearance. lol

You really want to ban the burqa? How are we all going to become nudists if you do that?!

 

In this case either or not both.

Man I wish you would pay attention, Particular,

used to single out an individual member of a specified group or class.

Put everything in this particular spot then.

I am not a body.

Human being.

I don't want to be nothing in particular.

I am not concerned by your views, you object to mine. Why do you engage me?

 

The body is projecting itself in time against the appearance like the energy for its reality against the Soul. Thus everything exists beyond the everywhere Morphe. Everything can't be for the soul focused in time.

 

Yes that's right---at the speed of light all is energy, mass does not exist. So----of this relativistic mass you talk of, what form does it take, what conditions does it exist in, where do we see it? This is mass relative to what?

Oh I see---yet you couldn’t describe a physics where photons have mass. In other words, you are just using energy as a description or definition of mass, because there is no other way to account for such a particle. Because we exist at sub-light speed, we experience physical reality. We know photons are there because they are a part of the universe, but we can’t really account for it in the sense of physical matter. So we come up with relativistic mass---which doesn’t change the fact that the invariant mass, rest mass, or mass is zero.

Albert Einstein wrote: “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken.”

Einstein’s theory of Relativity presents them as zero-time, zero-space, zero-mass entities---yet something so mysterious that we experience it within our physical universe----I’m sticking with that.

What I am really arguing is that in the physical sense light equals zero--that it is nonphysical, and that the physical, based on recent theory, does arise from the nonphysical. Yes, ultimately at the absolute level under this theoretical scenario, reality does seize to exist. I agree with Berkeley, that existence is only perception. But it really doesn’t matter, because from our perspective physical reality does exist, though it is only of the present that we can say exists with the most certainty. However, if light exists within our universe as a non-physical entity (not to mention even as the source of physical reality), then it is possible that other aspects of the universe, namely, consciousness, exists as a non-physical form as well.

I remember this conversation last time. You still don’t know the details and variations of the experiment. Yes if there was a beam then it could make some sense what you are saying----I guess---granted, it would still be questionable how after the fact, by measuring position, we suddenly have two slits rather than a wave pattern (as occurs in one of the more puzzling variations of the experiment). But the experiment is not always done using a beam. It has been done over and over and over in many different laboratories using single photons, single electrons, single atoms, and other single particles, fired one at a time. Your argument does not account for that in any way. If this problem was so easy to solve it wouldn’t be a problem would it?

But in order to achieve what you are saying, they have to prove that only the physical exists, and to come to terms with life, science needs to explain it. But instead of coming closer to understanding life, science has only discovered that the mystery deepens further.

Hmmm? What post were you reading----I never referred to myself. But both science and philosophy have yet to come to terms with the very things we are arguing here.

Well, like I said----that’s not me, that’s Einstein. The physical constant it presents is time, which is equal to the speed of light. Per the second theory I discussed, light provides all physicality----strangely enough.


The book----that’s a good question. Well over three years ago I quit my job to write. My wife didn’t like that, so for two years we traveled, all over the world, and even when we were home we were off staying at hot springs. I didn’t get much writing done, so over the past year I wanted to focus on writing, she still doesn’t let me work. She doesn’t understand that to write a book, a person actually needs to sit and write. It is pretty frustrating. It is one of three books. The first of the three I have already put about 12 years or more of work into----actually it was the original book that morphed into three separate ones. This book we are talking about is the second of the three. The third one ties everything together. Once the publisher gets it, it generally takes another year or so before it comes out. I haven’t even marketed to any publishers yet. I have put together book proposals, I just need to spice them up a bit and start getting them out there.

In the meantime I was putting together another book which I was self-publishing---one on the stock market, which I should have been able to write in a month or two. I was able to work hard on it for a month and a half, and got it all but a couple of chapters done. That was January---I have a lot of people who are wanting to buy it---and I keep telling my wife that if I could have a week I could finish it-----but… Unfortunately I have always had a thing for pretty women. When I fall for them, I am blinded by the fact that they are such high maintenance----or maybe it is the bad combination of ‘foreign’ and ‘pretty women.’

I hope within the next few months I can get some book proposals out. Then it is a question of which of three goes first, and at that point we are probably looking at 6 - 8 months or so to finish the book---then another year for the publisher to do his thing…

The working titles are---The Cave, The Blossom, and the Sacred Circle, A history of the sacred feminine and the major impact of gender on mankind’s language, spirituality, and civilization. The Mind Dimension, A rational explanation of consciousness and the irrational realities of life. Metamorphosis of the Gods, The future of mankind in the face of the post-modern crisis. The one on the stock market is: The Worm Will Turn (Or, Using Charts to Trade & Invest Like a Pro).

If there is an end to this universe, then time for this universe, i.e. the space-time continuum we find ourselves currently in, is finite. I fail to see where everything happening at once necessarily indicates an infinite time. A finite time could all happen at the same time. But yes, time could be infinite.

But----I never said that time does not exist. For the photon qua photon, time does not exist. But for us, at sub-light speeds, time does exist, though all we know for sure is that it is a continuous series of Nows.

But in what realm does this form of tableness exist? In what realm does the true one-ness, two-ness, three-ness, etc. exist? Following St. Thomas of Aquinas, if it is all in the head, then it plain doesn’t exist. If it doesn’t exist, then it is purely a conceptual abstraction of reality. Yes, physicality could be infinite, but if only the physical exists than you are not talking about form as Plato or Aristotle used it.

 

Yes that is right. One time I was provided a vision of the consciousness as being of a greater dimension than our physical 3 dimensions and that of time. (hence the title of my book, The Mind Dimension. We exist in the physical dimensions as a physical body, at that point where our mind penetrates into the physical dimensions. From a higher dimension we create who we are within this dimension. I am not saying this is truth, I am saying that it is how I interpret what I was shown.

Well, what can you do... (sigh)

I measure the moment of Now as the infinitely small period of time that it takes a photon situated right next to an atom, to pass into that atom's (to borrow terminology from a black hole) event horizon. One photon behind that photon is the same as one photon into the future.

If I look to the sun, there are a huge number of photons between me and the sun. But the sun I am seeing is the sun of something like 8 minutes ago. There are trillions and trillions of photons between my eye and the sun, yet the only photon I can perceive in the Now is the one sitting right next to an atom within one of the vision cells within my eye, as it passes into the event horizon of that atom. Yet even then, as you hint at, by the time I actually preceive that present moment, that Now has already passed into the past.

But in terms of my reality, there is no way for me to perceive all those trillions of photons between me and the sun. The batteries in the sun could suddenly die, and it would still take me 8 minutes to see that this happened. There is no technology for example that would allow me to. ;-) Even if we were to greatly magnify the view of the sun with a telescope making it look like were a lot closer---we are still not suddenly looking at photons that are only 5 light minutes, or 2 light minutes from the sun. It is only an illusion that the sun appears closer.

So for all practical purposes, all of those photons do not exist in my present. Those that are directed towards me do exist in my future.

 

Sorry if I'm shooting off topic with your discussion. (Thedope/Dejavu)

But wouldn't death have power over life in the sense of how we now live life? Without death, I imagine we would be much more patient beings.

 

Not off topic and thank the circumstance there is someone to talk to besides same old same old.
We may have ideas about death that affect our choices as we cannot escape the effects of our own thinking. Death does not undo life and is not opposite of it. Ideas about death and it's relationship to life do figure prominently in how we behave. It is conception in every sense that defines our secure sense in relation to what we observe and how forthcoming we will be. What is the reason for death, conception or being born gives reason to all things.

The idea that death has power to end life is a cultured sense and as a cult requires extreme effort of the living. You can see the disproportion in the extraordinary personal and capital investments devoted to finding a single lost or feared dead individual or the extraordinary end of life care given to the very wealthy compared to the meager relief afforded the poor and the relatively paltry consideration given to an everyday child who is hungry. Look at the disappeared jet liner and the massive investment. It is not death that is an affront to our real proportions but fear. Fear is only and ever afraid of the truth. The truth only and ever sets us free from it.

Curious why you would think patience would be easier if there were no death? If you knew you could not fail you could just as easily force your way to the front of the line all the time.

 

wolf:

Fact? It has its relativistic equivalent as energy, it has momentum, it's physical.

How does it present them as zero time and space?

Recent theory? Seize to exist? The physical arises from the physical. A virtual popping in and out of existence remains... virtual. "Non-physical" forms? No. Our existence is its perception.

No. Superposition. This guy explains it far better than I could: http://jamesowenweatherall.com/SCPPRG/EllermanDavid2012Man_QuantumEraser2.pdf

No need to 'prove' that only the physical exists to come to terms with life! lol
Science has never discovered the "non-physical." :-D Is it really a mystery that the physical doesn't cease to exist?

In what sense?

What about beautiful women?

Anything we regard as finite occurs within another finitude ad infinitum.

All consciousness is embodied. You don't think so, neither does thedope. You may perhaps come to think so! :-D

thedopes shoulder is nearby! lol



thedope:

That's right, everything is its appearance and there is more than meets the eye. Do you still want to deny appearance its occurrence? lol

Bet you do. But I don't care how you confine meaning in particular.

The attempt would not alter the truth, that everything is everything in particular.

LOL Oh, ok.

Your views are yours. What I object to is your idiotic idea that they're mine! lol

 

lol Go talk to god! Fresher than a daisy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNjbHBKDTp0"]Undercover Agent - Ruffer - YouTube

 

when the universe rips itself apart and the entire universe is contained within the event horizon of a white hole, that is when time travel is and will be possible if you happen to exist within the white holes event horizon at that moment in time because at that moment time was a single coherent wave that that collapses to infinitely many probable particle velocities

 

The word so comes to mind.

That we present them at all is an abstraction.

virtual, being such in power, force, or effect, though not actually or expressly such. There is an event horizon when perception is translated into recognition and also as one changes their mind.

So, that doesn't explain away transcendence, that the mind transcends the appearance of the physical in the images of the minds eye.

The thought coming first.

If it is as you suggest then no we won't come to think so. I suggest that any body will do. Symbols on a page constitute enough body to transmit mind

How about the dawn?

What occurs to me is more than what may appear at large.

That truth being that particular is an abstraction and cannot be singled out and remain consistently abstract. So it is something but nothing in particular.

That is idiotic. I don't even think you understand me a great deal of time!
You object to my saying of one thing or another in contravention of my view.
Obviously we do not embrace the same construct nor do I claim that we do save we share our thoughts. They belong to us all.

 

Far out!

 

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3fvHR1tX6Q"]http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3fvHR1tX6Q

 

thedope:

As a question or a confirmation?

So?

You and that dictionary need to get a room. :-D

No. The physical keeps on appearing whether or not the mind perceives it. We'll watch over you while you sleep. It's alright baby dope.

Not really. It's inexorability.

No, you may. Embodiment is always ongoing.

Relativity. One mans dawn is... his own.

You're not so big for your boots your bullshit doesn't get booted. What occurs to you is what occurs to you. It can be different from what may appear at large.

Particulars aren't necessarily abstractions. You're the one suggesting the particulars can be singled out. Everything is something in particular. This 'problem' concerns force of intelligence. lol

Not even? Far out! lol Are you concerned my views contravene yours? You insist god exists for us all. You are a pusher. I don't mind pushing back. If you do, then you'll have to mind it I suppose! :-D

 

Hi Caterpillar. I'm not sure how to live forever. Doesn't mean we can't. ;-D