I have a theory of my own: Our brains are like some kind of television receiver; the requisite data is in effect broadcast from a central production studio, possibly run by somebody affectionately known as "God".

This would also explain consciousness and unconsiousness, the way that we lose the picture when the set is not in good working order, when the channels are not properly tuned in.

--- RH.

Do you want to know something, just between you and me(and the rest of the online world) thats exactly the same conclusion I came to about four years ago, though I just called it 'tuning in'.

I was at work today and my mate was pulling a cage which was loaded with stock. He said ; ''Bloody hell!'' , so ive said ''Its heavy aint it''

But then I stopped and thought,' im not pulling it, im not experiancing the heaviness of the load, my perseption is completly from memory and general expectation due to my mates expression; is it in fact heavy or is it only a matter of my mates understanding to what heaviness is-and to me it wouldnt be; or is it just a 'possibility' that it is heavy until certainty is validated when I take the cage off him ?'.

Then we went for a cup of tea.

Also is certanty a certainty in the respect were reality is subjective?

Some certainties weigh more than others.

As I pointed out before, truth is the majority verdict, so it is wiser not to bet against the odds.

-- RH.

I was wondering if 'reality' is actually two fold; The personal subjective angle where what our consiousness understands acounts for 'the truth', becuase there is no actual other way to contemplate otherwise. Then there is the objective reality that exists to 'maintain' our universe even when we dont conseive of it. Therefore the objective reality is like an invisible 'manager'(there is a better term, but I cant think of it) who controls it, and when we percieve of it we see it in our own individual ways completly unaware of the 'managers' operations.
I dont mean 'God', Im trying to charactorise the consistancy of the exterior world beyond the inconsistancies of our interior subjective consiousness through which our perceptions are made.

Then you are not the only one.

The "intelligent design" controversy rages endlessly.

I see nothing though to convince me that the said single reality exists, as opposed to an infinity of personal realities, except as a convenient notion, an ultimate generalisation, a lowest common denominator invented to simplify our practical communications.

To the contrary, the conceit of science rather offends me in the way that it likes to dismiss so much of what is extremely important to real people, as mere delusions.

"Any device that can lose information can generalize."
(W Ross Ashby)

--- RH

This would explain how people in certain situations can experience extra boosts of adrenaline and lift cars and do unhuman like things.. Where mind the want of the car to be off of an individual for example , takes over matter. The normal thought that runs through our brain when we see car to heavy to lift. A case of mind over matter.. it is the ability to control this that is the ultimate trick. The ability to believe in self over anything else.

Your theory that the world is like tv is what the movie "The Island" plays on..

Yes, that is a good example, the sort of thing one hears about often enough to have to take seriously, or do they?

This has always bothered me, that so many people, sometime in their life experience something or other that is perfectly real to their senses, but also obviously significantly out of kilter with what they know of the supposed laws of science.

If then those who preach the laws of Science were blessed with any integrity at all, they'd long since have stopped the attempt to suppose that their laws are absolute, in favor of a better understanding to account for the remarkable number of execptions to the rules.

Instead we hear the endless litany of "anecdotal", "delusion", "subjective", "pseudo science", or whatever else, while they cling to their cherished axioms with a fervour that would put the Spanish Inquisition to shame, on the occasion that a heretic should dare to dispute the creed.

--- RH.

Very true,perplexity. There is acute secumonstances that defy the laws of science, which is commonly called paranormal and supernatural. Though scientists tend to have a problem with adapting these to their understanding I would say that not only that science obviously isnt the 'golden rule', but it is quite literaly a dogma type approach to understanding much like the dogma of religion in the past.

An old man once said to me life is what you make it. Maybe I see more truth in this than all the science in the world.

Such was also the message of the Buddha Gotama:

1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Dhp I: Yamakavagga

--- RH.

What is life you ask? Life is that which you trace the self from, after it became organic. I define self here: http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1907#post1907

matrix huh? lol

A scientific friend said to me "first there was nothing then there was something and eventually there will be nothing again,thats all there is to it"

Hello All

It is a charming piece of post modernism your truth and my truth are not the same, but if his truth happens to be a large truck bearing down on you,you had better believe it.Actually ones life and destiny are not imponderables nor is what is in fact truth,it may not be answerable but ponderable yes indeed, it is! As to looking within and looking without, both perspectives seem the reasonable approach.As complex as it is, many of us never stop pondering how it came to be.It sounds a bit like some are trying to hold the individual totally responsiable for his lifes condition,but I think it much more complex than that.You may be pleased with your life but if you think it to your credit,your dreaming.

the reality you percieve is unique from your neighbors
the entire area around you exists both infinitely in a wavelike form and also seporated partically
an object with mass can be sensed by all of us and each object has certain qualitys
and we absorb its qualitys by sensing them and we become aware of them
and eventually redestribute those qualitys through the things we do in life
but qualitys absorbed from mass (or not from mass) are uniquely interpreted in each of our brains
the color blue i see is not the color blue you see
but why are my qualitys interpreted differently if we're both sensing the same piece of mass? shouldnt they be the same?
no, we are all different because we dont absorb all of the same qualitys
if we all absorbed the same qualitys we would all be exactly the same, but we arent, we are different and redistribute the absorbed energy in different ways, this is why art is different and our bodys and brains are agreeably physically different in size and shape so this cannot be the case
everything u can absorb or sense is already apart of your subconcious, your simplying discovering it by becoming concious of it
the entire environment is already there in your head
and by discovering a small piece of it you begin discovering yourself
in a way, your entire environment is your subconcious mind and the whole environment is hidden inside your subconcious but becoming concious of parts of it is what we do as seporated individuals
thats the point of conciousness, to become completely aware of itself
it exsits as a paradox
so it gets split up into different people to percieve this one thing an infinite number of ways in order to realize it exists
but really its all already there just not completely aware of itself
and thats how conciousness effects reality because different qualitys get absorbed and redestributed by different generations so the environment begins to change
the energyside of things takes a physical form only in the brain
sensing is thinking, seeing is thinking, this is all a thought
the whole particle side of our existance is simply the finite expression of the absolute
and thats why deep inside you know your an eternal being but you just cant prove it so some of us dont believe it, but thats ok, that expression of life is supposed to take place and in that persons finite version of reality anyone would think that way if they were percieving the world as they do
but to me science and syllogisym and pragmaticism isnt the whole picture anymore, not that i discredit mathmatics, its just not the entire picture
because infinity as a number cannot be a number
so if we use science we cannot see the whole truth, because the other side of it is infinite and no measurements can be taken to help prove our theorys
infinity + 5 = infinity
infinity x 339 + -22 = infinity
see its impossable, try it if you like, get out a calculator

Life is the consciousness of the earth, the eyes, ears, touch and smell of the earth. As Alan Watts once said, "The earth peoples as the apple tree apples.


Lifes is holiday on Primrose lane!!------think about it!

Everything.

'Life' seems to be defined, ultimately, as 'motion'. (Reproduction, feeding, defending, evolving, etc.. are all 'motive'...)
As 'motion' is an illusion of 'memory', then the answer to the question of "what is life" would seem to be, 'the 'illusion' of life is co-arising with the illusion of 'motion''.

(Galaxies move, evolve, gain and lose 'weight/mass/volume', sometimes reproduce, etc.. Are they, too, 'life'? Is everything 'life'?)