You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
a stargate if you will. a domain selecting device, for those who wish to boldly go where no entity has gone before. a hall of mirrors, where regressive reflections repudiate reasonable responses...
OK, here it is. 35 years in the making. So be nice.
By definition, everything that is, has been, will be and could be comprises that which I name "Everything That Is" (ETI). "Everything" includes everything: hard things, soft things, real things, unreal things, material things (such as rocks and trees and human beings), immaterial things (such as souls and thoughts and dreams and mathematical formulae), and everything in between.
By definition, ETI is the biggest gestalt of all. Jesus is part of ETI. Jehovah is part of ETI. Zeus is part of ETI. Satan is part of ETI. Ahura Mazda is part of ETI. So too is Beelzebub. Baal. Gaia. Quetzalcoatl. ETI encompasses everything for all time and a ...More
There are a number of unwarranted assumptions underlying the discussion of the so-called "binding problem", and an overall flavour of circularity in the discussion. Not to mention the strong possibility that the innate treachery of language may be contributing to the creation of a non-issue re this issue.
Consider, for example, the Revonsuo and Newman (1999)* definition: The binding problem is "…the problem of how the unity of conscious perception is brought about by the distributed activities of the central nervous system."
There is still no good theory of consciousness: what it is, where it lives, whether it is in fact unified, etc. And there is still no good theory of "personal sel
...More
I have come up with a way of illustrating my big toe visually, but I can't seem to post an image into this blog, only a link to an image. Pity, cos I think you guys would really diggit. Anyway, click on the link if you don't mind and you will see what I mean:
Greetings to any and all who come to the Bridge Between the Worlds.
You will* find some strange stuff here, including silly answers to stupid questions, like: ...is there death after life? ...why is the sky dark at night? ...why did the chicken cross the road? ...do UFOs exist? ...will powdered rhino horn make me sexy? ...and, will humankind survive the impending cataclysm of its own making?
Is everyone sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. But before I do, a confession: I have some other blogs that I will link to from time to time in the Bridge. I hope this does not represent a transgression against the rules of ToeQuest. If it does, will someone please let me know.
How small is small? How big is big? How long is the longest Planck? All qualities (qualia, if you must) are relative. Nothing is big, absolutely. Nothing is small, absolutely. Nothing is red, absolutely. Some things are bigger than others. Redder than others. Smaller than others.
The fact is, there is no such a thing as the biggest or reddest or shortest or longest or smallest thing. At one stage, atoms were supposed to be the smallest thing. Then electrons. Then protons. Now quarks are supposed to be the smallest thing. How strange. Charmed, I'm sure. From top to bottom.
The planet was once thought to be the biggest thing. Then the solar system. Then the galaxy. Then the universe.
...More
Imagine you are making a cup of tea, and some boiling water drips onto your hand. You feel pain in the part touched by the boiling water. You are aware of your hand, and you are aware of the part of your hand that hurts.
In one sense, part of your hand is talking to you (conveying a message of pain) and you know how that part is feeling (sore). In other words, you and a whole bunch of your cells are having a conversation. But you don’t know anything at the level of, or about each, individual cell. A single solitary cell in your body can not talk with you, nor can you talk with it. (As far as I know, but I don’t rule anything out, ever.)
Now, let’s scale it up. Imagine that the entir
...More
If anyone were to ask me whether I believe in UFO's, I would reply, "It depends what you mean by 'believe in'.
If 'believe in' means 'worship', then no--I don't worship UFO's. And no, I don't have to be in a UFO to believe in UFO's or anything else for that matter.
However, I do believe that some objects fly,and that some of those flying objects are unidentified. It is incontrovertible, undeniable and indubitable that some people have seen flying objects that continue to be unidentified until they are identified, or not as the case may be.
If you were to ask me whether I believe in God, I would reply, "It depends what you mean by 'believe in'.
If I absolutely, positively, definitely had to worship a deity, I would prefer to worship a deity who does not require worship. If I were constructing a deity "from the ground up" so to speak, I would construct a deity who does not lay down commandments to be obeyed. My deity of choice would not require any sacrificial offerings from me or anyone else, would not become jealous or wrathful if I were to pray to other deities on the odd occasion. Among the attributes of my preferred deity are a sense of humour, an outgoing personality and an appreciation of the finer things in life, such as sex (in or out of marriage) and drugs and rock and roll and other edgy stuff too. Who would want a deity ...More
The optical illusion called Rubin's vase after its inventor / discoverer the Danish psychologist Edgar Rubin involves higher-level cognitive pattern matching of great interest to the Gestalt psychologists, who invented/discovered many similar illusions themselves.
Gestalt thinking can help answer some of the biggest questions around, those relating to consciousness, personhood and the like.
07-21-2007 09:20 AM 
If I absolutely, positively, definitely had to worship a deity, I would prefer to worship a deity who does not require worship. If I were constructing a deity "from the ground up" so to speak, I would construct a deity who does not lay down commandments to be obeyed. My deity of choice would not require any sacrificial offerings from me or anyone else, would not become jealous or wrathful if I were to pray to other deities on the odd occasion. Among the attributes of my preferred deity are a sense of humour, an outgoing personality and an appreciation of the finer things in life, such as sex (in or out of marriage) and drugs and rock and roll and other edgy stuff too. Who would want a deity 
