Page 2 of 4
#42
Quote by SlackerBabbath
But that's a lie, astral travel isn't an undisputed scientific fact. Infact, far from being considered as a fact, astral travel has never been verified by scientific study and is considered as impossible according to science. For example, imagine you are astraly travelling and taking notice of everything you are seeing along the way, how exactly are you 'seeing' anything without a solid pair of eyeballs to see with? Normaly, when we see things, the rays of light enter our eyes and hit the lens present in the eye. These rays then excite the nerves, which carry a message to the brain via nerves. The brain then understands the signal that the eye is sending and 'sees' the object that the eye was looking at.... but how can any of that happen without any of the things needed for sight to be possible, such as an eyeball, a brain and the nerves required to carry the signal?

It's like expecting your TV to be able to pick up a clear picture of an object without someone first pointing a camera at it, so in other words, the belief in the possibility of astral travel, or astral 'projection' as it's otherwise known as, is considerd by science to be an irrational belief.

yeah but like
what even is 'seeing'
if seeing is just electrical signals in the brain as a result of a stimuli, then what's the difference between seeing something irl and seeing something when dreaming? The signals you get when you're asleep are identical to those during waking life, the only difference is that you literally become the stimuli you're experiencing; you experience yourself. Everything enters before it becomes manifest, this means that at the very most, everything you see/smell/touch/experience is an aspect of the self, propagated by a stimuli, LD and AP is just experiencing Self without the influence of Maya, and Self is way more real than Maya, given that Maya is a result of Self.
#43
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
yeah but like
what even is 'seeing'
if seeing is just electrical signals in the brain as a result of a stimuli, then what's the difference between seeing something irl and seeing something when dreaming? The signals you get when you're asleep are identical to those during waking life, the only difference is that you literally become the stimuli you're experiencing; you experience yourself. Everything enters before it becomes manifest, this means that at the very most, everything you see/smell/touch/experience is an aspect of the self, propagated by a stimuli, LD and AP is just experiencing Self without the influence of Maya, and Self is way more real than Maya, given that Maya is a result of Self.


When we dream, we are just entering into a parallel universe because the one we're in shuts off.
#44
yeah
like
it 'shuts off' cos we stop creating it
so other than irl being a mass hallucination, what makes it more real than a dream?
nowt
if the truest thing we have is 'cogito ergo sum' then surely fully experiencing self is way truer to yourself than a false interpretation of an 'outside' stimuli
#45
I think a better question is what makes a dream less real than this dream we call life. It's not that reality is imaginary... just that imagination is reality. When we "believe" in something, we allow it to exist in our mind. Or maybe I'm just a crackpot.
#46
nowts true, owts permitted

e.g. gravity doesn't exist, instead its our interpretation of a fundamental aspect of existence
but this doesn't make gravity 'truth'
the only 'truth', if you can call it that, is Void.
#48
it's called pseudophilosophical babble
I enjoy it
it doesn't make what I said incorrect

but how can gravity exist when niether space, time nor matter exist, and gravity is a force affecting a particle along spacetime?
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 9, 2013,
#49
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
it's called pseudophilosophical babble
I enjoy it
it doesn't make what I said incorrect

It's called bullshit. And what you said is incorrect, not because it's pseudophilosophical babble. But because that's not how physics works.
#52
Space doesn't really exist. It's nothing. We are all mostly made of empty space. And yet, here we are. What the **** is going on?
Last edited by MrDo0m at Feb 9, 2013,
#53
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
But because that's not how physics works.

How exactly, then, does it work?
if we were to use light as an apparatus of measurement, and we remove the notion of time given that it's a fact that it doesn't exist, then if 'space' is just the amount of 'time' taken for light to 'travel' from 'a' to 'b', in the 4d< light would exist in both these states simultaneously, removing the notion of a specific 'space' in spacetime

and it's already pretty common knowledge that matter doesn't actually exist and is instead the result of the collapse of the wavefunction, then given that space, time and matter don't exist, how can gravity ACTUALLY be the force of attraction of matter on other matter relative to mass when none of those concepts truly exist?

I'm not saying gravity 'doesn't exist', I'm saying our perception of it isn't and can't ever be what it truly is, on the basis that any reference we could ascribe to it is incorrect

getting real tired of your shit Sam
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 10, 2013,
#54
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
yeah but like
what even is 'seeing'
if seeing is just electrical signals in the brain as a result of a stimuli, then what's the difference between seeing something irl and seeing something when dreaming? The signals you get when you're asleep are identical to those during waking life,

No, that's incorrect.
The signals you get when you are awake come from your eyes and tell you what is actualy in front of you, the signals you get when you are asleep and dreaming come from your brain and show you things that are not real. One is (usualy) considered as a trustable source of reality while the other is not. There's nothing 'identical' about them at all.
#55
No, that's incorrect.
Where are you proposing the signals from the eye go? They follow an identical path to those during sleep, the only difference being that during sleep they aren't from an outside stimuli, as I specified.

If seeing is electric signals in the brain, then there's no difference. If I ripped your eyes out and plugged in a computer that sent the same signals to the brain telling you you're looking at a pony, are you looking at a pony? Yes, cos sight is a result of impulses int brain. Impulses that happen to be identical during sleep.
#56
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
Yes, cos sight is a result of impulses int brain. Impulses that happen to be identical during sleep.


This is evidently not true. One can produce a mental image without removing the ability to see at the same time, and thus the signals cannot be occupying the same neurons.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#57
You do know "psudophilosophical babble" is a pejorative, right?
^^The above is a Cryptic Metaphor^^


"To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity." Everything is made up and the facts don't matter.


MUSIC THEORY LINK
#58
"undisputed scientific fact"

lel

obligatory Crack The Skye mention

OT: I'm definitely interested in trying it. To some degree it sounds pretty cool; whether it's actually an out of body experience or just a Wake Induced Lucid Dream doesn't really matter. It's definitely something that's worth trying imo.
#59
yes I'm not ******ed
why is ****** starred out

Quote by Todd Hart
This is evidently not true. One can produce a mental image without removing the ability to see at the same time, and thus the signals cannot be occupying the same neurons.

Imagination is produced in the occipital cortex, super vividly imagining something while trying to simultaneously view an elaborate pattern in all of its detail will result in either lacking in quality. Similarly, imagining running, for example, uses your motor cortex in the same way that actually running does, just in less intensity. If you were able to imagine with enough intensity, similar to the intensity of impulses as a result of stimuli from irl, you'd be seeing/smelling/feeling it just in the same way as irl. And that's what dreaming is. Movement in dreams also uses the same neurons, the only reason we don't move irl is because the path of neurons traveling down your spine to your muscles are blocked, when this doesn't happen is why sleep walking occurs.

My point is that if seeing is just information processed by the visual cortex, same with smell taste touch and hearing with their respective brainy counterparts, then there's literally no difference between touching/smelling/seeing something in a dream and doing the same irl. Other than irl provides an 'external' stimuli.

Everything is done subconsciously when awake, people aren't trained to allocate enough mental RAM towards imagination to be able to have a fully vivid hallucination so it's a lot harder to do, but it doesn't mean it's any different.
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 10, 2013,
#60
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
No, that's incorrect.
Where are you proposing the signals from the eye go? They follow an identical path to those during sleep, the only difference being that during sleep they aren't from an outside stimuli, as I specified.

No, 'sight' works via a signal from an eye which follows the optic nerve to the brain while a 'dream' originates within the brain itself and doesn't involve the optic nerve.

There is however evidence that the visual cortex, the part of your brain in the back of your head is activated by imagined pictures in the same way it would be for actual pictures, but the mechanics of the activation are definately different.

Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT

If seeing is electric signals in the brain, then there's no difference. If I ripped your eyes out and plugged in a computer that sent the same signals to the brain telling you you're looking at a pony, are you looking at a pony? Yes, cos sight is a result of impulses int brain. Impulses that happen to be identical during sleep.

No, if you 'sent' an image of a pony to my brain, then I'd be looking at an 'image' of a pony rather than an 'actual' pony. Unless of course the image you were sending was from a live feed from a camera that was indeed pointed at a real pony, in which case you would have effectively replaced my eyes with cybotic replacements.
#61
Quote by Shotgunmerc
"undisputed scientific fact"

lel

obligatory Crack The Skye mention

OT: I'm definitely interested in trying it. To some degree it sounds pretty cool; whether it's actually an out of body experience or just a Wake Induced Lucid Dream doesn't really matter. It's definitely something that's worth trying imo.

Agreed.

What's this about Crack The Skye? You mean the Mastodon album, right?

If such a thing exists (which I'm not getting into) then I'd definitely be up for it. I've often managed to lucid dream once in my life that I can remember. Quite a few years ago, I was about 17. I hadn't been sleeping properly for a while, I'd had about an hour's sleep and done a whole day's work. I got into my room and quite literally collapsed on the bed, utterly exhausted. I then kinda floated out of my body, I can remember seeing myself led on the bed. I then left via my window and was flying over my town. It was utterly amazing. I then started imagining things which were appearing all around, fancy cars etc.

It didn't last all that long and I remember waking up crying, whether that was from joy or fear as to what was happening I'll never know. I'll never forget that.
#62
Quote by SlackerBabbath
No, 'sight' works via a signal from an eye which follows the optic nerve to the brain while a 'dream' originates within the brain itself and doesn't involve the optic nerve.

Kin 'ell, yes, but once in the brain, the signals are identical, only imagination cuts out the step of eye -> brain, which is what I said int first post

Quote by SlackerBabbath
There is however evidence that the visual cortex, the part of your brain in the back of your head is activated by imagined pictures in the same way it would be for actual pictures, but the mechanics of the activation are definately different.

yeah, that there isn't an outside stimuli required for imagination, as I said int first post


Quote by SlackerBabbath
No, if you 'sent' an image of a pony to my brain, then I'd be looking at an 'image' of a pony rather than an 'actual' pony. Unless of course the image you were sending was from a live feed from a camera that was indeed pointed at a real pony, in which case you would have effectively replaced my eyes with cybotic replacements.

yeah but
like
what would you say 'looking at an actual pony' is?
if its a result of light hitting the back of your retina resulting in messages sent to't brain, then if there were a means of replicating those messages then what would be the difference? Yeah, the second (stop)pony(2012) doesn't exist in spacetime, but neither does the first. It's all just flitting electrons operating under a probability function. The closer the look at irl the less we observe any of it actually being there

This means the only means of referencing anything to do with irl is based on impulses in our brain. That are the same impulses as when dreaming/imagining.



Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 10, 2013,
#63
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
Kin 'ell, yes, but once in the brain, the signals are identical, only imagination cuts out the step of eye -> brain, which is what I said int first post

But where does the imagination come from? Y'see that comes from a different area of the brain and also goes to the visual cortex. It's simply a case of one part of the body having more than one use, which really isn't unusual, take fingers for instance, we can use them for scratching or picking fruit.
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT

yeah, that there isn't an outside stimuli required for imagination, as I said int first post

So they work differently then, sight requires an outside stimuli while imagination doesn't.
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT

yeah but
like
what would you say 'looking at an actual pony' is?

I would call that 'sight'.
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
if its a result of light hitting the back of your retina resulting in messages sent to't brain, then if there were a means of replicating those messages then what would be the difference?

The difference would be that the 'replicated' messages wouldn't have originated from light hitting the back of a retina, so it wouldn't be the same thing as 'sight'.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Feb 10, 2013,
#64
Quote by SlackerBabbath
But where does the imagination come from? Y'see that comes from a different area of the brain and also goes to the visual cortex. It's simply a case of one part of the body having more than one use, which really isn't unusual, take fingers for instance, we can use them for scratching or picking fruit.

yes............ which is why.......... in the first post........... I said as opposed to observing Maya, One observes Self
Maya being an outside stimuli as elaborated in later posts
Self being the relevant part of the brain for that imagination (if it's an image, the visual cortex)

both means of 'seeing shit' end up in the same place, and it's the place that they end up that makes us see shit

Quote by SlackerBabbath
So they work differently then, sight requires an outside stimuli while imagination doesn't.

and it's the place that they end up that makes us see shit

Quote by SlackerBabbath
I would call that 'sight'.

and it's the place that they end up that makes us see shit

Quote by SlackerBabbath
The difference would be that the 'replicated' messages wouldn't have originated from light hitting the back of a retina, so it wouldn't be the same thing as 'sight'.

and it's the place that they end up that makes us see shit
#65
We're both saying the same thing but I think maybe you think I'm saying imagination originates in the retina which I'm not I'm saying that the place that imagination and 'traditional sight' end up is what gives rise to vision, this little bit of mush int back of our skulls, completely encased in darkness, but tricks us into thinking we can 'see' stuff. Sight isn't whatsoever an accurate representation of reality, instead, our interpretation, which is why they call it Maya (illusion)
#66
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT

if we were to use light as an apparatus of measurement, and we remove the notion of time given that it's a fact that it doesn't exist,

If you say so. Clearly, time does exist, as a form of measurement at the least. After all, I'm quite certain that physics uses it to determine things like when the universe came into being and such.

Edit:
Although, I suppose one could say that our current measurements of time are a construct. However, time itself (as physics understands it today) is clearly not a construct.


I'm not saying gravity 'doesn't exist', I'm saying our perception of it isn't and can't ever be what it truly is, on the basis that any reference we could ascribe to it is incorrect

Hmm...and? That doesn't really prove any of what you just said.

getting real tired of your shit Sam

Join the club. We meet on Tuesdays.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Feb 10, 2013,
#67
Quote by JokerGrin
What's this about Crack The Skye? You mean the Mastodon album, right?


They wrote the album partly about astral projection that's what the song Oblivion is about iirc
#68
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
If you say so. Clearly, physics do exist, as a form of measurement at the least. After all, I'm quite certain that physics uses it to determine things like when the universe came into being and such.


Hmm...and? That doesn't really prove any of what you just said.


Join the club. We meet on Tuesdays.

what the **** are you on about you ****ing dumb prick
you're so ****ing oblivious to how ****ing stupid you are it makes me want to get perma'd just so I can't read your ****ing posts any more

'physics do exist' what the **** does that even mean **** off
did I not just ****ing say using light as a measurement and pulling it up a ****ing dimension?
time doesn't ****ing exist as we per****ingceieve it, in the 3d we feel the ****ing effects of the 4d that appears to us as a steady flow in a straight line from one moment to the ****ing next

this is our perception of it
this isn't what is actually is
**** off

What the **** do you ****ing mean 'hmm...and?' I had to ****ing elaborate on what I said the first time cos you're too ****ing shitheaded to understand what I meant so don't come at me with this ****ing 'dunt prove shit bro' when I weren't even ****ing trying to prove owt

**** off

WHAT THE **** DO YOU MEAN 'That doesn't really prove any of what you just said'??? ITS THE FIRST ****ING THING I SAID AND I WASN'T EVEN TRYING TO ****ING PROVE OWT, I WERE MAKING A SHITDAMN****ING POINT


**** off quoting me calling me out all the time if you're just gonna post ****ing utter wankfists of sentences and especially if you're wrong

you ****ing do it to people all the time and you just look a dick for ****s sake
it's practi****ingcally 90% of your ****ing posts on here
7% being some shirry opinion
the remaining 3% on making sure everyone knows you have a girlfriend
is she a ****** too?
sorry that was mean
but is she?

piss off
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 10, 2013,
#69
Quote by Shotgunmerc
They wrote the album partly about astral projection that's what the song Oblivion is about iirc

Ooo thank you mate. Any excuse to give it another spin
#70
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
what the **** are you on about you ****ing dumb prick
you're so ****ing oblivious to how ****ing stupid you are it makes me want to get perma'd just so I can't read your ****ing posts any more

'physics do exist' what the **** does that even mean **** off
did I not just ****ing say using light as a measurement and pulling it up a ****ing dimension?
time doesn't ****ing exist as we per****ingceieve it, in the 3d we feel the ****ing effects of the 4d that appears to us as a steady flow in a straight line from one moment to the ****ing next

this is our perception of it
this isn't what is actually is
**** off

What the **** do you ****ing mean 'hmm...and?' I had to ****ing elaborate on what I said the first time cos you're too ****ing shitheaded to understand what I meant so don't come at me with this ****ing 'dunt prove shit bro' when I weren't even ****ing trying to prove owt

**** off

WHAT THE **** DO YOU MEAN 'That doesn't really prove any of what you just said'??? ITS THE FIRST ****ING THING I SAID AND I WASN'T EVEN TRYING TO ****ING PROVE OWT, I WERE MAKING A SHITDAMN****ING POINT


**** off quoting me calling me out all the time if you're just gonna post ****ing utter wankfists of sentences and especially if you're wrong

you ****ing do it to people all the time and you just look a dick for ****s sake
it's practi****ingcally 90% of your ****ing posts on here
7% being some shirry opinion
the remaining 3% on making sure everyone knows you have a girlfriend
is she a ****** too?
sorry that was mean
but is she?

piss off
If you dislike my objections to your pseudo-understanding of physics, then go ahead and block me.
#71
But I'm explaining to you why I'm right and you're just being a Jew about it

no antisemitism
you are though
explain to me how I'm wrong in owt I've said
I'm doing a ****ing physics degree fs
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 10, 2013,
#72
Quote by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT
But I'm explaining to you why I'm right and you're just being a Jew about it

no antisemitism
you are though
explain to me how I'm wrong in owt I've said
I'm doing a ****ing physics degree fs

Because clearly the concept of time exists. You're getting it all mostly right, but you're letting your own opinion bleed through. That's why I usually disagree with you, because you basically take physics (in this case) and then try to apply it to some New-Age-y/mystic bull.
#74
Quote by StewieSwan
Suspect troll

I'll never tell...



(But honestly, I really do hate how this kid takes scientific concepts and then tries things like "using light as a measurement and bringing up another dimension" and tries to twist everything to fit his opinion. His understanding of physics is good; his logic is all over the place though.)
#75
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
I'll never tell...



(But honestly, I really do hate how this kid takes scientific concepts and then tries things like "using light as a measurement and bringing up another dimension" and tries to twist everything to fit his opinion. His understanding of physics is good; his logic is all over the place though.)



Was talking about TS.


Some day, though, you'll realize that KILLSWITCHKNOT666XXX is an idiot and shouldn't be argued with.
Check out my band Disturbed
#76
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Because clearly the concept of time exists. You're getting it all mostly right, but you're letting your own opinion bleed through. That's why I usually disagree with you, because you basically take physics (in this case) and then try to apply it to some New-Age-y/mystic bull.

No, we perceive time as being a flow of plancklengths in a specific direction, this doesn't mean that that's what time is. If we were to go up a dimension, we'd experience a sense of timelessness in that we'd exist in all time (and space) simultaneously. Time doesn't ****ing exist for ****s sake it's a ****ing human creation used to make living in this world easier and make sense, just in the same way that the concept of 'space' is our perception of something that is wholey divorced from what we experience.

Time is a ****ing illusion and **** you.
The only thing that exists is This Moment.
Past and Future are our brains telling us something to make sense of it.
Stop ****ing telling me I'm wrong when I'm not, at least come back with a ****ing counterargument instead of saying 'you are wrong hippie mystic bullshit boy' you ****ing dickbrick


stop bringing 'newagemysticbull' into this when I haven't (nor have I ever) referenced it once just cos you think I'm into it, which I aren't, piss off

Quote by crazysam23_Atax
I'll never tell...



(But honestly, I really do hate how this kid takes scientific concepts and then tries things like "using light as a measurement and bringing up another dimension" and tries to twist everything to fit his opinion. His understanding of physics is good; his logic is all over the place though.)

THATS HOW ****ING SCIENTISTS MEASURE THE UNIVERSE FOr ****s sake

it's our best measuring apparatus because its (generally) a constant and is better than using, say, an electron, which can be altered by many variables

This is the equivalent of a flatlander arguing that 'up' doesn't exist and then getting pissy when he's told that if he went into the 3d he'd see how it does

what's wrong with gong up to the dimension where time actually exists to show you how our perception of it is wrong? tell me how I'm wrong instead of just trying to frikkin grit at me
Last edited by KiLLSWiTCH-KnoT at Feb 10, 2013,
#77
Quote by StewieSwan
Was talking about TS.
Ah, well...


Some day, though, you'll realize that KILLSWITCHKNOT666XXX is an idiot and shouldn't be argued with.

I did block him, so... I had him blocked before and then unblocked him after a few months. (I was hoping that he'd adjusted to the Pit and wasn't acting like such an idiot. This thread and a few others has proved that he still is an idiot.) I think I'll keep him blocked this time.
#78
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

"In physics, the Planck time (tP) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length."

"The Planck time comes from a field of mathematical physics known as dimensional analysis, which studies units of measurement and physical constants. The Planck time is the unique combination of the gravitational constant G, the relativity constant c, and the quantum constant h, to produce a constant with units of time. For processes that occur in a time t less than one Planck time, the dimensionless quantity tP / t is greater than one."

no one will read this.
okay.
#79
Quote by Ian_the_fox
You're not girly enough of a boy for me, and you're not man enough to take the top. So like, sorry bitch but you ain't mine! Sorry.
#80
^ I don't smoke boy
Quote by StewieSwan
Was talking about TS.


Some day, though, you'll realize that KILLSWITCHKNOT666XXX is an idiot and shouldn't be argued with.

Dude although I troll hard sometimes i am not trolling with this thread.