[futrethink]

Mohan.c.

I think futrethink is treating membranes as dimensions.

---I am trying to show a difference between the description of the diMEMsions of length, width, thickness, time, etc and the description of alternate DAmensions/realities.
---Scientist have the hypothesis called M-theory and use that to refer to the 11 hypothesized dimensions, that include the known ones of length, width, thickness and time.
---I have a tendency to bring differing/alternative frequencies/realities into discussions and have begun showing the difference between the two using the above wordings.

I think you are talking of the presence of an object in perception, not physical. Is that right.

---It all depends on how you look at something. Something can be one/physical, the other/an idea, both or neither. Part of that is the inclusion of time: in the past an airplane was an idea, in the present a plane is an actual physical object, to someone who looks at both as being truths, it is both at the same time, because even if we have the physical object, it doesn't destroy the idea that once existed in the past. As to how it can be neither, take away the descriptions of 'idea' and 'physical object' or any description of any kind and it is neither of those things, on one level of perception.
---I can see how something physical can be one dimensional, two dimensional, three dimensional, four dimensional or even more. The problems lie in my attempting to describe how it can be all of them and none of them, without what I am saying seeming to be a play on words or a bad pun. In trying to describe these things, I do my best to keep things as objective as possible and it is usually and immediately taken by the reader as a pun, without them taking the time to carefully think about what I am saying.

Thanks for referring to me as a mathematician, I dreadfully hate that subject and very weak in mathematics. But its really nice to be referred to as one.

---I also called you a believer in numbers and by your next statement of

I think that is why I have more belief in the logic of computers(binary system). Its either true or false. 0 or 1. It exists or it does not exist.

, you have proven me to be right. You are a follower of binary logic. Something is either black or white, true or false and etc.
---Reality doesn’t follow binary logic. Reality is black, white and grey. It is everything in between and none of them. It is also a couple of other colours, that don’t fit into the spectrum of black and white.
---Reality, itself, is only perceived by the things that exist within reality, so to the things that exist and perceive existence, it exists. There is nothing outside of reality to prove that reality exists, so since there is no outside proof that reality exist, to an objective thinker it doesn't exist. Both of those conditions are occurring at the same time and are both truths.

[Mohan.C]

Originally Posted by futrethink Mohan.c. ---I am trying to show a difference between the description of the diMEMsions of length, width, thickness, time, etc and the description of alternate DAmensions/realities. ---Scientist have the hypothesis called M-theory and use that to refer to the 11 hypothesized dimensions, that include the known ones of length, width, thickness and time. ---I have a tendency to bring differing/alternative frequencies/realities into discussions and have begun showing the difference between the two using the above wordings. ---It all depends on how you look at something. Something can be one/physical, the other/an idea, both or neither. Part of that is the inclusion of time: in the past an airplane was an idea, in the present a plane is an actual physical object, to someone who looks at both as being truths, it is both at the same time, because even if we have the physical object, it doesn't destroy the idea that once existed in the past. As to how it can be neither, take away the descriptions of 'idea' and 'physical object' or any description of any kind and it is neither of those things, on one level of perception. ---I can see how something physical can be one dimensional, two dimensional, three dimensional, four dimensional or even more. The problems lie in my attempting to describe how it can be all of them and none of them, without what I am saying seeming to be a play on words or a bad pun. In trying to describe these things, I do my best to keep things as objective as possible and it is usually and immediately taken by the reader as a pun, without them taking the time to carefully think about what I am saying. ---I also called you a believer in numbers and by your next statement of , you have proven me to be right. You are a follower of binary logic. Something is either black or white, true or false and etc. ---Reality doesn’t follow binary logic. Reality is black, white and grey. It is everything in between and none of them. It is also a couple of other colours, that don’t fit into the spectrum of black and white. ---Reality, itself, is only perceived by the things that exist within reality, so to the things that exist and perceive existence, it exists. There is nothing outside of reality to prove that reality exists, so since there is no outside proof that reality exist, to an objective thinker it doesn't exist. Both of those conditions are occurring at the same time and are both truths.

An idea is not lost only if it is recorded. An idea is not lost if it is still being passed on as an idea, then it exists in the persons memory who has received it from a predecessor, or it is recorded in a paper or anything which can be used for recording. In both cases it is physical(an object or brain which also has a physical existence). If it stays and dies with the originator then it is lost with his death. So any thing to have an existence should be present in the present either in the brain or on paper. It may have existed in the past but "Past is past". If another person gets the idea he becomes the owner of the idea.

An outside of reality concept comes if we consider anything more to reality since anything more to reality is considered an illusion it is not reality.

According to me reality is everything may not be what all we see or believe there may be more to it. What all there is to it is all there is. I'm including everything not just in our universe if there is another universe then it is also a reality. It is also a reality not an illusion because if it exists it exists.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink Mohan.c. ---I am trying to show a difference between the description of the diMEMsions of length, width, thickness, time, etc and the description of alternate DAmensions/realities. ---Scientist have the hypothesis called M-theory and use that to refer to the 11 hypothesized dimensions, that include the known ones of length, width, thickness and time. ---I have a tendency to bring differing/alternative frequencies/realities into discussions and have begun showing the difference between the two using the above wordings. ---It all depends on how you look at something. Something can be one/physical, the other/an idea, both or neither. Part of that is the inclusion of time: in the past an airplane was an idea, in the present a plane is an actual physical object, to someone who looks at both as being truths, it is both at the same time, because even if we have the physical object, it doesn't destroy the idea that once existed in the past. As to how it can be neither, take away the descriptions of 'idea' and 'physical object' or any description of any kind and it is neither of those things, on one level of perception. ---I can see how something physical can be one dimensional, two dimensional, three dimensional, four dimensional or even more. The problems lie in my attempting to describe how it can be all of them and none of them, without what I am saying seeming to be a play on words or a bad pun. In trying to describe these things, I do my best to keep things as objective as possible and it is usually and immediately taken by the reader as a pun, without them taking the time to carefully think about what I am saying. ---I also called you a believer in numbers and by your next statement of , you have proven me to be right. You are a follower of binary logic. Something is either black or white, true or false and etc. ---Reality doesn’t follow binary logic. Reality is black, white and grey. It is everything in between and none of them. It is also a couple of other colours, that don’t fit into the spectrum of black and white. ---Reality, itself, is only perceived by the things that exist within reality, so to the things that exist and perceive existence, it exists. There is nothing outside of reality to prove that reality exists, so since there is no outside proof that reality exist, to an objective thinker it doesn't exist. Both of those conditions are occurring at the same time and are both truths.

Originally Posted by Mohan.C An idea is not lost only if it is recorded. An idea is not lost if it is still being passed on as an idea, then it exists in the persons memory who has received it from a predecessor, or it is recorded in a paper or anything which can be used for recording. In both cases it is physical(an object or brain which also has a physical existence). If it stays and dies with the originator then it is lost with his death. So any thing to have an existence should be present in the present either in the brain or on paper. It may have existed in the past but "Past is past". If another person gets the idea he becomes the owner of the idea. An outside of reality concept comes if we consider anything more to reality since anything more to reality is considered an illusion it is not reality. According to me reality is everything may not be what all we see or believe there may be more to it. What all there is to it is all there is. I'm including everything not just in our universe if there is another universe then it is also a reality. It is also a reality not an illusion because if it exists it exists.

Slow down, guys. Futrethink, you have 8 ideas in your last post. Mohan.C, you have at least 3. Progress is not usually effective if we all do a brain-dump in each post. Please select a single point you think is critical at the moment, and let's work through it. The order should start with a foundation upon which we can build together. Which of your ideas are "foundational"?

[futrethink]

---JAK.

---I will have to apologize for seemingly hi-jacking your thread in my discussion with Mohan.C.
---The discussion about multi-valued/perceptual logic is something that I have been through many times, on many different discussions and will not continue it here, as it does not directly relate to your 3 laws of differences on the level that the thread is intended (from the way the opening post is set up).

[futrethink]

---Mohan.C.

An idea is not lost only if it is recorded.

---Who or what does the recording? Isn’t the idea recorded on the level of the interactions of the atoms used in the mind that conceived/remembered the concept?
---I am not going to take this discussion any further on this point or any others of my previous post, as this is not my thread and I will not hi-jack it from JAK.
---I have had this general type of discussion many times on paradoxes and the result of it will be us agreeing to disagree. You have a belief in the truth of science, of hard material evidence and of binary logic. I accept what is and what isn’t a part of reality, as objectively as possible.
---http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=182562&page=19 is a discussion of “Nonexistence exists.” and it will somewhat include many, if not all of my arguments that I would be ending up bringing to a continuing discussion of what has transpired on this JAK’s thread. My first post is # 458.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink ---I will have to apologize for seemingly hi-jacking your thread in my discussion with Mohan.C. ---The discussion about multi-valued/perceptual logic is something that I have been through many times, on many different discussions and will not continue it here, as it does not directly relate to your 3 laws of differences on the level that the thread is intended (from the way the opening post is set up).

Maybe it does. Visit my website for a discussion on how the mind works. I support perception/mind according to Bernard Baars' Global Workspace Theory. I support the selection of mental activities as a "survival of the best fit" which is competed in the NCC (Christof Koch's Neural Correlates of Consciousness) located in the prefrontal lobes of the brain and/or the nRT (nucleus Reticularis Thalami) - the outer shell of the thalamic bulbs. The process for the competition is postulated within my website.

Originally Posted by futrethink ---Mohan.C. ---Who or what does the recording? Isn’t the idea recorded on the level of the interactions of the atoms used in the mind that conceived/remembered the concept?

The recording is complex using multiple sites within the brain. Each concept is stored in a neural circuit which was shown to exist by Wilder Penfield in the 1940s at McGill University.

Originally Posted by futrethink --- ---I am not going to take this discussion any further on this point or any others of my previous post, as this is not my thread and I will not hi-jack it from JAK.

Heck, I'm used to it. (Everybody says Hi-JAK to me! I don't mind delving into the brain, mind, or emotions anytime, anywhere. If we are going toward a spiritual idea, I've been there two, and I support the possibility of a spiritual realm. (To see it, I require that you watch the movie "The Matrix", the episode "Errand of Mercy" of the original Star Trek series, and that you have had dreams. Having played online games with other gamers is helpful for the discussion, too.)

Originally Posted by futrethink ---I have had this general type of discussion many times on paradoxes and the result of it will be us agreeing to disagree. You have a belief in the truth of science, of hard material evidence and of binary logic. I accept what is and what isn’t a part of reality, as objectively as possible.

I, too, have had such discussions, but I have been successful in integrating these seeming paradoxes. The paradoxes usually end up due to faulty logic on one or both sides of the discussion.

Of course, I am also reminded of the chemistry professor who is called to a student's table because the student was puzzled by the "stuff" he saw through his microscope. The professor indignantly said, "It's nicht 'stuff'! It's got to be zumtink!" Then he peered down the microscope for a long time. Finally, he blurted out, "Vhat iss dis junk anyvay!"

Originally Posted by futrethink --- ---http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=182562&page=19 is a discussion of “Nonexistence exists.” and it will somewhat include many, if not all of my arguments that I would be ending up bringing to a continuing discussion of what has transpired on this JAK’s thread. My first post is # 458.

I shall now disappear to read your hyperlink. If I can successfully unravel the paradox, I shall return with my results. If not, then you will hear me declare, "Vhat iss dis junk anyvay!"

[futrethink]

Jak.

I support perception/mind according to Bernard Baars' Global Workspace Theory. I support the selection of mental activities as a "survival of the best fit" which is competed in the NCC (Christof Koch's Neural Correlates of Consciousness) located in the prefrontal lobes of the brain and/or the nRT (nucleus Reticularis Thalami) - the outer shell of the thalamic bulbs.

---I have printed off a synopsis of each of the two mentioned ideas and will get back to you on the ideas behind each, at a later time.

The recording is complex using multiple sites within the brain. Each concept is stored in a neural circuit which was shown to exist by Wilder Penfield in the 1940s at McGill University.

---In your rush to show me your knowledge, did you read and think about what I was describing? Yes, they are stored by a neural circuit, but what is the underlying material, that is perceived scientifically, which is used as the storing device and the stored?
---Is it because of the interaction of those underlying pieces of that material, which is also happening at the same time, on a different level, which also causes the recording to be occurring?
---I took it to a simple level. I didn’t bring into it, how an idea is being recorded as a part of the past on a temporal energy level, at the same time.
---A single style recording of an idea disappearing does not mean that the idea is completely lost. Merely, that that recording can’t be perceived anymore.

The paradoxes usually end up due to faulty logic on one or both sides of the discussion.

---Does the fault lie in the perception of what is, the perception of the logic, the description of the logic or the concept itself (which may very well be an existing paradox)? I can see how nonexistence can have an existence (but not exist) and I can see how existence can be nonexistent. Wouldn’t that make both concepts paradoxes?

I don't mind delving into the brain, mind, or emotions anytime, anywhere. If we are going toward a spiritual idea, I've been there two, and I support the possibility of a spiritual realm.

---Mind (ego, human), body (id, animal) and spirit (superego, angel/devil). I have been there and apparently, will be doing so again, in discussions with you.
---As for understanding other realms/perceptions of existence, not a problem. I discuss DAmensions, diMEMsions and the ideas that come with an infinite reality of all things existing in all times. From that, all a higher level of existence, for us, might be is simply one of the two types of dimensions or both at the same time.
---Your scientist might call it junk, but it is still zum tink. Objective and subjective reality at the same time and interacting. Describing it, with the words/symbols relating to the Global Workspace Theory or some other way (mathematically {_x/-x_0_-x/+x_}, verbally/sound, with dance/physically, with pictures or other), won’t change what was, is and will be.

[futrethink]

Mohan.C.
---I am continuing this with JAK’s permission and only for this reason.

An outside of reality concept comes if we consider anything more to reality since anything more to reality is considered an illusion it is not reality.

---I never stated that there was anything outside of reality. My exact words were, taken from a part of the sentence,” There is nothing outside of reality.”

It is also a reality not an illusion because if it exists it exists.

---True.

So any thing to have an existence should be present in the present either in the brain or on paper. It may have existed in the past but "Past is past".

---Really? And the proof that the idea existed, is only recorded by the passage of knowledge through human material and matter?
---If an idea of a tree falling in the forest, is only known by one human and lost, does that mean that a concept of a tree falling in a forest, on a planet with forests unseen by all the other humans, is never to have happened in the past?

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink Mohan.C. ... ---If an idea of a tree falling in the forest, is only known by one human and lost, does that mean that a concept of a tree falling in a forest, on a planet with forests unseen by all the other humans, is never to have happened in the past?

Good point. We assume that reality acts in a causal fashion with or without human sensory perception. This is also essential for the fundamental beliefs of all sciences.

Nevertheless, everything in your life may be an altered state of a higher consciousness. Just as you awaken from a nightly dream and realize that you were not falling from a cliff nor flying (Lordy, I love flying dreams), similarly we believe the conscious state we are presently in implicitly. However, whether it is "reality" or not is debatable. Having others participate and interact is no proof either. Have you ever spoken with someone in a dream at night? Did you anticipate what the dreamt person was going to say? Similarly, do you know what those around you are going to say?

The more you understand about the mind, the more you realize that all conscious perceptions are digital creations which may or may not truly reflect "reality".

One other idea to flavor the discussion, if we are actually immersed in an altered state of consciousness rather than "reality", then why? To this I suggest the primary use of virtual reality systems. They are primarily used for training - flight simulators being the most well-known. If we are in a dream state, then it might be a "virtual reality" system built by an advanced civilization to train us, their children. And if we are eternal, then part of the system must mask us from our higher state in order to temporarily believe in our own mortality in order for us to fine-tune our value systems. And in an eternal existence, what does it matter how may "lives" we spend in training?

[futrethink]

---JAK.

Nevertheless, everything in your life may be an altered state of a higher consciousness.

---Why do you think it is called a ‘state’ of mind? Eg: You are in a crazy state of mind. Or. You are in a depressing state of mind. Or. I am in a happy state of mind.

One other idea to flavor the discussion, if we are actually immersed in an altered state of consciousness rather than "reality", then why?

---To find the answer to the question, “Is there nothing more?” and when the answer comes up as, “No.”, to help find the answer to the question, “Okay, now what?”

And if we are eternal, then part of the system must mask us from our higher state in order to temporarily believe in our own mortality in order for us to fine-tune our value systems.

---Yes, no, both and neither. It all depends on how you perceive it.

And in an eternal existence, what does it matter how may "lives" we spend in training?

---Even though the massenergy, which is a part of our beings, makes us ‘immortal’ and allows us to have ‘eternal life’, since we, at the moment, still die, I think that it does matter to the people who enjoy that one life. Since we, at the moment, have no proof that the beings we are now stay the same, as we change into the next ‘state’ when we die.
---Oh and I am still waiting for your response to the answer of

---True, but you first have to have a perception of the concepts that the symbols of ‘exception’ and ‘not’ describe, otherwise, your ‘law’ doesn’t even exist and becomes the exception to the rule. ---No perception=no differences.

found in post # 14.
---By that I mean, if there is no perception, at all, how can there be any differences?