You should get him to wear a hat... and a suit... and solve crimes and or mysteries with a hyperkinetic rabbity thing.
No but seriously how are you planning on achieving this? Also .... even more seriously... and I am not accusing you of anything... if harm comes to the dog I will be really disappointed in you.
The new agenda is unfolding. Man kind is almost ready to believe in spirits. Shows like Fact or Faked clearly show a scientific approach bearing spiritual evidence. The truth is unfolding, the agenda is changing.
Of all things paranormal, super natural, the silliest thing humanity refuses to at least be open minded to is spiritual existence. The agenda is changing, with in 100 years you we all believe.
The new agenda is unfolding. Man kind is almost ready to believe in spirits. Shows like Fact or Faked clearly show a scientific approach bearing spiritual evidence. The truth is unfolding, the agenda is changing.
Of all things paranormal, super natural, the silliest thing humanity refuses to at least be open minded to is spiritual existence. The agenda is changing, with in 100 years you will all believe.
If I live to be 121 I still wont belive in ghosts spirits sprites or any of that stuff!
I still don't understand the point you're trying to make? Cakes won't be lies? What's the argument here? Is there one? I don't want to sound condescending, so please don't take this that way but, I don't understand.
I still don't understand the point you're trying to make? Cakes won't be lies? What's the argument here? Is there one? I don't want to sound condescending, so please don't take this that way but, I don't understand.
I still don't understand the point you're trying to make? Cakes won't be lies? What's the argument here? Is there one? I don't want to sound condescending, so please don't take this that way but, I don't understand.
To illustrate how perception may be wrong, especially concerning the 3rd dimension. Current theoretical postulates have put forth the idea that the third dimension we perceive as depth is an illusion created from a 2 dimensional existence that essentially bends. While we operate in three dimensions because that's how we perceive it, it may not be fundamentally correct to think of existence as being such.
wrote:
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard 't Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind[1] who combined his ideas with previous ones of 't Hooft and Charles Thorn.[2] In fact, as pointed out by Bousso,[3] Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.
In a larger and more speculative sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as a two-dimensional information structure "painted" on the cosmological horizon, such that the three dimensions we observe are only an effective description at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the cosmological horizon has a finite area and grows with time.[4][5]
The holographic principle was inspired by black hole thermodynamics, which implies that the maximal entropy in any region scales with the radius squared, and not cubed as might be expected. In the case of a black hole, the insight was that the description of all the objects which have fallen into the hole, can be entirely contained in surface fluctuations of the event horizon. The holographic principle resolves the black hole information paradox within the framework of string theory.[6
The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals." Bekenstein quotes William Blake and asks whether the holographic principle implies that seeing "the world in a grain of sand," could be more than "poetic license".[12]
wrote:
The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary
_____________________________________
Entropy, if considered as information (see information entropy), is measured in bits. The total quantity of bits is related to the total degrees of freedom of matter/energy.
For a given energy in a given volume, there is an upper limit to the density of information (the Bekenstein bound) about the whereabouts of all the particles which compose matter in that volume, suggesting that matter itself cannot be subdivided infinitely many times and there must be an ultimate level of fundamental particles. As the degrees of freedom of a particle are the product of all the degrees of freedom of its sub-particles, were a particle to have infinite subdivisions into lower-level particles, then the degrees of freedom of the original particle must be infinite, violating the maximal limit of entropy density. The holographic principle thus implies that the subdivisions must stop at some level, and that the fundamental particle is a bit (1 or 0) of information.
Now this I never thought of but there's a lot of logical sense in this.
I think I've almost come up with a good theory for possible spirit life, human experience observing spirit life. I think I'm on the verge of developing a decent theory. It's already there though. I'm sure of it.
If I can sit here and just pull the conceptional focuses of these things out my arshe, I am sure that by now they have several solid theories on spirit life. I'm close, I think, to discovering within some of those conceptional focuses. Even if my understanding of the scientific validation isn't completely coherent, the general ideas still revolve around me, and around my thoughts.
When we respond to reality don't we believe in what we're responding to? Don't we believe that what we are reacting to is real as it influences and affects our reality? Aren't those beliefs? Do we consciously believe in reality? If we're interacting with reality then it must be real, we must believe in it, yes? Unless you want to get into deeper theories, like the holographic principle.
How can you react towards something if you don't believe in any of the properties of what you're experiencing? Words, ideas, colors, sight, smell, taste, sound, science, math, knowledge, etc etc...
Without even challenging, must we believe in reality simply because we respond to it?
What if we had a whole other set of beliefs, ways of observing reality, would it change?
It's just a word to sum up loyalties and positive feelings. There's no such thing as love, is there?
Definition:
wrote:
–noun
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.
8.
( initial capital letter ) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9.
affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
10.
strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11.
the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12.
the benevolent affection of god for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13.
Chiefly Tennis . a score of zero; nothing.
14.
a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
It's a concept, it's not a naturally occurring experience, it is resonating from a series of empirical events that proves absolute, true. by social norms. It's all about what's expected from others, what is observed in the pure, natural sensation of what the human experience is .
Love is for a majority of group thinkers, for people who observe , "the obvious" of human nature, for everyone who is a normal and a kindred spirit of the human race. It's an experience first and second. It can't be put into true words because it only truly exists. We fabricate our existence both scientifically and historically. Romance, scientific labels, truths...
It's a simple set of events that leads to this love realization that forges this bond. Some people aren't socially conditioned into these series of events, some people never start this process, this so called "love".
It poses as a supposed essential part of human nature, experience. Yet, some people never meet any one, and will never feel that "love". Even though it's supposed to be so natural and obvious to us all.
It doesn't exist.
It's a series of events, a series of ideas behind a concept coming together to create a love-like image. And it isn't natural, possible for everyone.
Why do you think some people need to use technology, web sites to find this "love"?
Because it's a series of events, and they lack the social normality to adjust to these events!
Love is a lie.
It's a concept made in evolution, it's a social distinction intelligence has made, the evolved polite and mannered evolved form of a human being. It's the polite way of looking at wanting to procreate and screw some one to your liking.
And within this structure we have evolved ideas, delusions of a series of events leading up to this, a evolved process that is love. Dating, socializing, movies, etc etc...
It's evolutionary!
Love is an umbrella to catch the rain above our heads because we are too dignified and proper, civilized to step back out into the storm!
Have you ever "felt" love? It's more than a feeling (oh god the song is in my head now)
You can actually "feel" it, like you can feel euphoria or terror, it's more than an emotion
Have you ever "felt" love? It's more than a feeling (oh god the song is in my head now)
You can actually "feel" it, like you can feel euphoria or terror, it's more than an emotion
BS,know why married couples, etc etc break up? A series of events, experiences that lead to new ideas, thoughts. It's not a real thing, love is fake.
A series of events creates the delusion and a series of events can end it.
I guess the feeling is your brain firing off "feel good" chemicals when it relates to the good experiences/events? So it's natural as in feeling fear when you see something you've had a bad experience with?
In that case, I'd call it "real" but I see where you are coming from.
Or in your view, is fear fake? It's all in your head? But if that is so, what is real?
Fake and real are just opinions.
By the way I'm not denying things you are saying, I agree with most of it, just trying to have an interesting debate that's fuelled my interest!
My brain waves are different from other peoples'. That's because I'm epileptic. It's far from ideal. The brain waves healthy people have are probably close to optimal in order to take in an appropriate level of sensory input. As someone else stated, an overload of sensory input, or a lack of filters, puts people on an autistic spectrum and often hinders their development.
Not sure why you're calling feelings "delusions". Certainly pain is a physical sensation, but physical and mental/emotional feelings are not mutually exclusive. Pain and fear are demonstratably affected by past experiences, emotions, and expectations. Pain can even be pleasurable (scratching an itch is an example). Emotions sometimes manifest as physical mechanisms in the human body. But all of these things are responses to external stimuli or past experience, not a delusion, and not "fake".
Having feelings for someone else doesn't mean your feelings for your past love are less valid. Often, new love is exciting because it is unknown; or, either person may have changed enough to become incompatible with the old flame, and can't or won't make needed adjustments to keep it together.
Have you ever "felt" love? It's more than a feeling (oh god the song is in my head now)
You can actually "feel" it, like you can feel euphoria or terror, it's more than an emotion
You know I read that exactly as the song was playing in the background on a TV ad. :eek:
My brain waves are different from other peoples'. That's because I'm epileptic. It's far from ideal. The brain waves healthy people have are probably close to optimal in order to take in an appropriate level of sensory input. As someone else stated, an overload of sensory input, or a lack of filters, puts people on an autistic spectrum and often hinders their development.
Not sure why you're calling feelings "delusions". Certainly pain is a physical sensation, but physical and mental/emotional feelings are not mutually exclusive. Pain and fear are demonstratably affected by past experiences, emotions, and expectations. Pain can even be pleasurable (scratching an itch is an example). Emotions sometimes manifest as physical mechanisms in the human body. But all of these things are responses to external stimuli or past experience, not a delusion, and not "fake".
Having feelings for someone else doesn't mean your feelings for your past love are less valid. Often, new love is exciting because it is unknown; or, either person may have changed enough to become incompatible with the old flame, and can't or won't make needed adjustments to keep it together.
I said fear and pain are real. I'm saying love as a concept is delusional.
But, I do like the point you make
wrote:
feelings are not mutually exclusive. Pain and fear are demonstratably affected by past experiences, emotions, and expectations. Pain can even be pleasurable (scratching an itch is an example). Emotions sometimes manifest as physical mechanisms in the human body. But all of these things are responses to external stimuli or past experience, not a delusion, and not "fake".
Though, I can see we're going to get along, if not terribly, in a pleasurable way then.
I'm a little strange in this, I believe Love as a romantic notion does exist. However I also studied sociology and one of the very first things I recall learning in that class was this: Love does not exist, Love is merely the label we give to a set of mutually beneficial terms where two people or groups benefit from a situation. If one stops benefiting from this situation then they no longer love the other, therefore the romantic notion of Love is a falsehood.
Therefore I'm a little strange, I on many levels do agree with the idea my sociology tutor drummed in to my head there about the existence of Love or non-existence as it may be. I think love as a noun as you put it in your definition there is perhaps wrong. I think of the word love as more of an adjective, a way of describing the feelings someone evokes in you. Love is not just a tender feeling for someone it's a whole host of emotions and feelings which are simply best served as being described as love.
"Love does not exist, Love is merely the label we give to a set of mutually beneficial terms where two people or groups benefit from a situation. If one stops benefiting from this situation then they no longer love the other, therefore the romantic notion of Love is a falsehood."
Ah. That makes rational sense.
But there are lots of situations where it would be advantageous to not love someone. People who love severely disabled people that cannot reciprocate; people who love children (and, if you think that's an evolved reaction, consider people who foster or adopt children with no genetic ties); people who sacrifice a better life just so they can live with the person they love. It happens every single day. Love is not always rational.
Couches, tacos are inanimate objects, humans are animate. A dear exists because in nature a dear has evolved and exists. A human exists because in nature a human has evolved and exists. Our existence is natural but evolved. We can't be compared to a couch or taco, neither do I think can the concept love be as a property of an natural occurring life form in our plains of existence. This planet supports life, it's natural that we have evolved in the natural system of this planet.
Our ability to construct as well as deconstruct concepts evolves with time as our natural existence goes on. BUT, is it academic? Is love truly understood? Some people argue it's biological, for example.
Love is a concept of the human sensations of life, and experience. Love is a human experience, and certainly some of the human experience is in fact biological, as it is natural ,we are natural beings who are biological beings. We can't escape that.
So, I'm sure that some of the biological theories of love at the least are relevant. But, humans don't leave love there, they call it a feeling all together. A mother would die for her own child, but would she die for another who wasn't her's?
Her experiences with her child, can be romanced but never the less they are experiences. Birth, etc etc...what if a mother gave birth was separated from her child for years, 10 years later bumped into that child, without knowing it, would you find immense love?
Love is a chemical reaction. So is acid reflux. LOVE IS ACID REFLUX!
I love pizza, and pizza gives me acid reflux. Oh, pizza, why must you hurt me so? Remember all the fun we had during college? I don't even know who you are anymore!! (cries)
I want to build muscles. But, I want to play fair. I don't want to rely on these record breaking drugs that set world records. People have gotten pretty big throughout history, fit, these roiders can get HUGE, not just bigger, not at their peaks but HUGGGGEEE...
I think my brother is going to be a roider, I hope not but I think he will. It's not just a sporting advantage, these are drugs to be super human...
I know some of it is genetic...
Get bigger is one thing , but these guys are HUGE.
Professionals justify it by saying everyone cheats, because they compete in that setting....But, lots of these guys say their guilty or that they don't have great joy in their winnings because they're cheating...A good example, Ben Johnson...
He put on a special on roids, on the TV for me, then went to school. I hope he's not trying to tell me something. I admire the natural way of building and I need to know how far I can go naturally.
I don't know what to think, this is a very human issue for me.
Comments
No but seriously how are you planning on achieving this? Also .... even more seriously... and I am not accusing you of anything... if harm comes to the dog I will be really disappointed in you.
Quoted for Best Quote Ever.
That would take some doing.
This dog, he just doesn't seem to function in the right, or full capacity. So, I've started to experiment on him.
Of all things paranormal, super natural, the silliest thing humanity refuses to at least be open minded to is spiritual existence. The agenda is changing, with in 100 years you we all believe.
If I live to be 121 I still wont belive in ghosts spirits sprites or any of that stuff!
Theres also loads of cake shows on tv does that mean in 100 years the cake wont be a lie?
What?
Ace of cakes, Cake wars shows like that.
I still don't understand the point you're trying to make? Cakes won't be lies? What's the argument here? Is there one? I don't want to sound condescending, so please don't take this that way but, I don't understand.
Its a portal refrence.
_____________________________________
Now this I never thought of but there's a lot of logical sense in this.
If I can sit here and just pull the conceptional focuses of these things out my arshe, I am sure that by now they have several solid theories on spirit life. I'm close, I think, to discovering within some of those conceptional focuses. Even if my understanding of the scientific validation isn't completely coherent, the general ideas still revolve around me, and around my thoughts.
How can you react towards something if you don't believe in any of the properties of what you're experiencing? Words, ideas, colors, sight, smell, taste, sound, science, math, knowledge, etc etc...
Without even challenging, must we believe in reality simply because we respond to it?
What if we had a whole other set of beliefs, ways of observing reality, would it change?
Definition:
It's a concept, it's not a naturally occurring experience, it is resonating from a series of empirical events that proves absolute, true. by social norms. It's all about what's expected from others, what is observed in the pure, natural sensation of what the human experience is .
Love is for a majority of group thinkers, for people who observe , "the obvious" of human nature, for everyone who is a normal and a kindred spirit of the human race. It's an experience first and second. It can't be put into true words because it only truly exists. We fabricate our existence both scientifically and historically. Romance, scientific labels, truths...
It's a simple set of events that leads to this love realization that forges this bond. Some people aren't socially conditioned into these series of events, some people never start this process, this so called "love".
It poses as a supposed essential part of human nature, experience. Yet, some people never meet any one, and will never feel that "love". Even though it's supposed to be so natural and obvious to us all.
It doesn't exist.
It's a series of events, a series of ideas behind a concept coming together to create a love-like image. And it isn't natural, possible for everyone.
Why do you think some people need to use technology, web sites to find this "love"?
Because it's a series of events, and they lack the social normality to adjust to these events!
Love is a lie.
It's a concept made in evolution, it's a social distinction intelligence has made, the evolved polite and mannered evolved form of a human being. It's the polite way of looking at wanting to procreate and screw some one to your liking.
And within this structure we have evolved ideas, delusions of a series of events leading up to this, a evolved process that is love. Dating, socializing, movies, etc etc...
It's evolutionary!
Love is an umbrella to catch the rain above our heads because we are too dignified and proper, civilized to step back out into the storm!
You can actually "feel" it, like you can feel euphoria or terror, it's more than an emotion
BS,know why married couples, etc etc break up? A series of events, experiences that lead to new ideas, thoughts. It's not a real thing, love is fake.
A series of events creates the delusion and a series of events can end it.
In that case, I'd call it "real" but I see where you are coming from.
Or in your view, is fear fake? It's all in your head? But if that is so, what is real?
Fake and real are just opinions.
By the way I'm not denying things you are saying, I agree with most of it, just trying to have an interesting debate that's fuelled my interest!
It's this evolutionary process of idea, concepts, philosophies and relationships that has created many modern day delusions.
How often do two perfectly compatible and conceptional happily paired people not get together because of a series of events?
How often do you marry some one because of a set of events and then fall in love all over again with some one else? Have feelings for some one else?
Not sure why you're calling feelings "delusions". Certainly pain is a physical sensation, but physical and mental/emotional feelings are not mutually exclusive. Pain and fear are demonstratably affected by past experiences, emotions, and expectations. Pain can even be pleasurable (scratching an itch is an example). Emotions sometimes manifest as physical mechanisms in the human body. But all of these things are responses to external stimuli or past experience, not a delusion, and not "fake".
Having feelings for someone else doesn't mean your feelings for your past love are less valid. Often, new love is exciting because it is unknown; or, either person may have changed enough to become incompatible with the old flame, and can't or won't make needed adjustments to keep it together.
You know I read that exactly as the song was playing in the background on a TV ad. :eek:
I said fear and pain are real. I'm saying love as a concept is delusional.
But, I do like the point you make
Though, I can see we're going to get along, if not terribly, in a pleasurable way then.
And what is taught in college?
Ah. That makes rational sense.
But there are lots of situations where it would be advantageous to not love someone. People who love severely disabled people that cannot reciprocate; people who love children (and, if you think that's an evolved reaction, consider people who foster or adopt children with no genetic ties); people who sacrifice a better life just so they can live with the person they love. It happens every single day. Love is not always rational.
It is pretty awesome, though.
Love is never rational. XP
NElTHER IS ACID REFLUX! Let the evidence stack up!
Our ability to construct as well as deconstruct concepts evolves with time as our natural existence goes on. BUT, is it academic? Is love truly understood? Some people argue it's biological, for example.
Love is a concept of the human sensations of life, and experience. Love is a human experience, and certainly some of the human experience is in fact biological, as it is natural ,we are natural beings who are biological beings. We can't escape that.
So, I'm sure that some of the biological theories of love at the least are relevant. But, humans don't leave love there, they call it a feeling all together. A mother would die for her own child, but would she die for another who wasn't her's?
Her experiences with her child, can be romanced but never the less they are experiences. Birth, etc etc...what if a mother gave birth was separated from her child for years, 10 years later bumped into that child, without knowing it, would you find immense love?
I love pizza, and pizza gives me acid reflux. Oh, pizza, why must you hurt me so? Remember all the fun we had during college? I don't even know who you are anymore!! (cries)
Signs point to yes!
I think my brother is going to be a roider, I hope not but I think he will. It's not just a sporting advantage, these are drugs to be super human...
I know some of it is genetic...
Get bigger is one thing , but these guys are HUGE.
Professionals justify it by saying everyone cheats, because they compete in that setting....But, lots of these guys say their guilty or that they don't have great joy in their winnings because they're cheating...A good example, Ben Johnson...
He put on a special on roids, on the TV for me, then went to school. I hope he's not trying to tell me something. I admire the natural way of building and I need to know how far I can go naturally.
I don't know what to think, this is a very human issue for me.