Starfang_42's Flamebate Posts

dear starfang 42

Deathclaw Posted:

”Fad” is completely pretentious, and sounds fleeting and menial.

A “meme” is like a beautiful pair of mammary glands, you can never quite forget it.

And it sounds way less fabulous persongy.

well…All I wanna do is bicycle.

dear starfang 42

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

At the same time, there is a consciousness about nature and life in general, which allows that tree to be and to fall. Either that, or the collective minds of the people have established that trees exist, and they fall. Of course, if one’s mind were free of the limitations of the collective consciousness, they could indeed break the bonds of what we call physics. Take, for example, Jesus. bumuming he did exist, and he performed the miracles he did, he did so by freeing his mind of the limits of the norm. Through sheer blind doubtless faith, he walked on water and spontaneously created bread and fish.

Ach. Religion. As far as jesus goes, there are records showing that a man fitting the name and description of jesus existed at that time, but whether he actually performed the miracles remains heavily debatable with the only evidence being the bible and word of mouth, and I’m rather doubtful. After all, if breaking outside the established laws of physics were that simple, we would have seen a lot more of it. Children, the insane, strong believers in any religion, all would be candidates for similar steps outside the accepted laws of physics.

dear starfang 42

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

It would be quite interesting.

My counter-point to your counter-point is thus: In theory, if one had absolutely no conception of the baseball, no possible perception or logical awareness, one could, potentially, be unaffected by it. Consider it a sort of mind over matter. In theory, if one was completely unaware of the effect of gravity, even in the most basic of senses, one could fly. But, like all those old Saturday morning cartoons, if that same person was suddenly taught that all things are drawn towards a greater body unless suspended in some way, that floating person would plummet to the Earth like the rest of us. Of course, this is just theory.

That has possibility in theory. However, finding data to support or refute it is difficult if not impossible. A newborn baby, who arguably has no knowledge at all of physics (gravity in our example), will still fall if dropped. However, this may be a case of observation and weights from the observers’ knowledge of gravity affecting their collective perception such that to everyone the baby indeed does fall. This relates to an interesting point. You are familiar with Schroedinger’s Cat? Perhaps the universe functions similar to that idea on a macro scale, with one important difference: Instead of the probability waveform collapsing on observation, it collapses on the potential of observation. For example, a tree falling in a forest would fall if someone were in the forest somewhere where they could see/hear it even if they are not, at the moment, watching.

dear starfang 42

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

You seem to have taken my argument the wrong way. I am fully aware of the solid existence of the universe, but reality as defined by the individual is an illusion. Nothing is real unless we have perceived it in some way, am I correct? If I am, then I must say that our perceptions are limited to our senses, which have their own limits imposed upon them. Now, add to that the fact that we as Human minds must alter our own limited perceptions, pieces of the Truth(note the capital T) in order to comprehend them, and garner a sense of reality.

Ah. Late night and such, brain’s not working at full efficiency. Which may explain why I’m not seeing the conclusion in your last post. Whether or not something exists if it is not perceived in some way is debatable, as it is inherently untestable. However, some information on things must exist even when they are not perceived, otherwise continuity and causality (whether real or illusionary) would be impossible. Take, for example, a baseball. Our main perception of it is sight, so if we close our eyes, ideally we would stop perceiving it. Yet it would continue on course until we either chose to perceive it again or it forced itself into another area of of perception (such as hitting us). But I do suppose we, as humans, can define our own reality and indeed do from observation or lack of it. It is by watching our definition and its contradictions that we come closer to the Truth. Static portions of the Truth or those which follow recognizable behaviors can then be cataloged and studied in detail by several people,

Right now, I need sleep. I’ve got a lot to do tomorrow, and several nights of staying up until 3 in the morning have left me mentally bankrupt. I’ll be back on sometime tomorrow if you want to continue the discussion.

dear starfang 42

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

Using that logic, everything is an illusion. Of course, as I stated in an earlier thread, reality is a series of altered and limited perceptions, and thus is, indeed, a series of illusions, each different to each individual.

I suppose it depends on your definition of illusion. You see, when I hear the word, I think of it in the sense of smoke and mirrors. You are perceiving objects and events which do not actually occur. On the other hand, what we perceive is normally there. It is only when we exceed, knowingly or unknowingly, the limits of our perceptions, that we find illusion. Based on this, I don’t think that the illusion lies within all the universe but our attempts to exceed our limits of perception.

dear starfang 42

Log in to see images! (view post)

dear starfang 42

Log in to see images! (view post)

dear starfang 42

also…

Log in to see images! (view post)

dear starfang 42

Spartapie Posted:

fabulous person detected

yep. you.

dear starfang 42

Spartapie Posted:

Here , I found your gun.

You preffer to discuss homo things Log in to see images!

Log in to see images!

Go ahead and keep it. I was going to give it to some emo, but you seem more deserving.

(view post)