Amp Zaphrix Posted:

Illusion is not only seeing something that is not there, it could also not be seeing something that is indeed there. The illusion of reality is not a simple series of parlor tricks, but the idea behind the stage magic of Las Vegas and many street magicians is the ability to warp these illusions further, or perhaps to dispel them. Magic is an alteration of perception, from simple glamers to the conjuration of solid objects from nothingness.

Either that, or sleight of hand.

Perhaps. However, I think that we have to take base reality at face value until we see (hear, taste, smell, or touch) otherwise, with a healthy amount of trying to peek behind the proverbial curtain. This may sound a bit circular, but that’s why I believe the universe is fundamentally real. If it is real, then the parts of it that are not are the exceptions, and we can empirically seek out the illusions, since they will eventually stop being consistent. From the right angle, the tiger doesn’t disappear, and the earth isn’t the center of the universe. As long as we check the things we perceive as real from as many angles as we can, we can build up a collective perception much larger than our individual one.

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.

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.

Starfang_42 Posted:

I dun liek teh mudkipz. theyz r stoopid fadz.

It’s “meme” not a “fad”. gb2YTMND.

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.

Starfang_42 Posted:

Pray tell, what is the difference? Rose by any other name, etc.

“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.

Explain David Blaine then.

I was just using Jesus as an example.

Amp Zaphrix Posted:

Explain David Blaine then.

I was just using Jesus as an example.

Better than average physical ability and endurance, and no small amount of training for each one. I see now clear breaking of the laws of physics, if you are referencing his endurance stunts. Beyond that, I’ve seen enough “how it’s done” shows on magic that I’m more inclined to believe it’s sleight of hand and clever misdirection of people’s perceptions. Admittedly, I’ve never seen him up close.

Good point. There’s a lot we don’t know about our universe, and we may one day find out that our accepted laws of physics are limited just like our perception. In fact, we already kind of are with the whole problem of a unified theory. But science is nothing if not dynamic. As an aside, that’s one of the things I dislike about religions, especially ones that maintain that they are undisputed the only right one (see: Christianity and similar) and are static to a very large degree. I mean, how long did it take for the Christian church to officially acknowledge that Galileo and company were right? That’s not to say I hate all religion. Just that I’m not going to follow one that doesn’t keep with the times, accept new facts, and not try to swindle me out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Mr_Malaprop Posted:

Intelligent counter arguments? Erudite conversations? Rational thoughts on the imperfections in the human recognition of the infinite? What’s become of the Trollhole?

Oh, wait. Earlier on in this (surprisingly intelligent) conversation, there was a much more appropriate O RLY owl/LolCats battle.

Whew. I was scared something clbumy was coming out of this forum. I don’t think that the world would be ready for that.

P.S. If you haven’t already seen it, starfang: http://www.venganza.org/

Ramen.

The power of a hijack.

Starfang, I’m not Christian. I believe Jesus lived, taught, and even did the things the Bible claims he did, but I believe that his power did not come from any divinity. He taught that faith can do many wondrous things, and I believe that, and I believe that is how he performed those miracles, through faith in his ability to do so. Perhaps one day we will be able to see past the confines of modern science and be able to do things never before thought possible. Until then, I will theorize.