Way to deep after the day I've had - I'm off to bed. "We already know how this will end! There are no "bits" to speak of. is "No thank you, I am not hungry. However, since this is precisely the issue, you can't assume it -- you must argue for it! Look at a woman.When she takes off her clothes she is not the same shape and is usually two to six inches shorter!Her perfume smells like that, not HER!Her lips aren't that color, her hair isn't that color, her eyes might not be that color.Her FACE might not look like what you see, what with shading and highlights.Her teeth, fake, her 'bat-cave' entrance hair, groomed. ", although he might not realise that he is asking that.Brian, your answer seems to be trying to 'orient' the unthinkably tiny to our size. (IPO = IOU? below. In the first case the thought-form of Yaweh has a degree of seperate existence. I want to emphasize this point, because it's the least understood one: every scientific test relies on our mind dependent senses, so no scientific test can 'get to' a mind independent world. It changes, or it's definition does, depending on the context. The concept of time is linked to this universe since there is no meaningful definition for time prior to the Big Bang. "If what I quoted above were true, then every argument that takes a set of premises as given (for the sake of argument), and that proceeds to draw out conclusions that contradict the initial premises, is question begging.Is that what you did then?Isn't it true that you might have 'concluded' that, "..we can never get 'outside' our mind dependent senses to see if they 'really' match.." without piling philosophy on philosophy?But, I'm pointing out that this 'package' of philosophies each implicitly DENY pure skepticism as in any way 'reasonable'.realism is bullshit because, "..we can never get 'outside' our mind dependent senses to see if they 'really' match.."materialism is bullshit because, "..we can never get 'outside' our mind dependent senses to see if they 'really' match.."And expecially empiricism is bullshit because, ""..we can never get 'outside' our mind dependent senses to see if they 'really' match.."(I've read this argument from you BEFORE NOW Eric! In many cases it's just the "most true" or the "least false" of all available options. My main point in the whole thing is that truth is not a metaphysical concept, and its definition is particular to whatever context it is embedded in. Which I can't see as a truth, except if I believe it I guess it could be called a truth to me, but not a truth in general. Who does he think he is removing other people's posts? I'm an ex-physics major, in case anyone asks. THIS IS WEIRD!! We could set up an experiment, wait a billion years and 'see'.What about 'into' the 'mind'? To be clear, the actual title is "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" Truth And Beauty: Inwardness of Art. (Not a rickroll!!! My mother always referred to him as 'the Tuboonka' from then on. So I can tell a (sleeping) dream from the "dream" of which I speak, because they're not the same, and I never claimed that they were. So I keep looking. They seem to revel in it. It doesn't have the answers yet, but I do think that it will get there eventually. All links are also no more than "R" rated. Skepticism is hard. The physicist knows that when a tree falls, vibrations are set up in the molecules of the surrounding atmosphere; these "sound waves" truly exist even if noone is there to experience them. Let's say that Yaweh is either a thought-form, or it's just the aggregated wish-fulfillment affect that is natural to the BB. In other words, IF the book once read differently, then it only did so because REALITY was different at that time. But then how can we ever know that the mind dependent deliverances of our senses 'match up with' (or accurately represent, etc.) :-). Jones bec… in Truth No Beauty? The Medusan is a creature considered by humans to be I claimed that it's most LIKE a dream. You've confused a reductio ad absurdum with a petitio principii!I think you need to look at the argument a bit more carefully. )So I stopped all hunting-related activities at around puberty. What are the, "Machine elves (also known as fractal elves, self-transforming machine elves) seen by some under the influence of DMT?Seems to me that they are telling us, simply that they are us, our purpose is life's purpose, to BE alive and to replicate.They are imaginary representations of our primal instinct. But can either of us say which one of us loves our pets, or our wives for that matter, more? that Bill Clinton was the first president of the U.S. -- though you can, of course, know *that* something is false -- e.g. She goes out and finds stones whose shapes interlock to fit. Of course the book was always the same. my senses) to deliver the mind independent (i.e. And we're talking about science class, so within the defined context, ID is not true, so we don't teach it. At that point, I just whack the fingers of my right hand simultaneously against the palm of the same hand repeatedly. I might be creative and put things here that assure me it's all real even though it isn't. That is its flaw, and its charm. Some like it warm, some prefer it hot, but no one is going to prefer to sit in a pot of boiling water or walk naked through the antarctic. Our poor little primate brains! Except that when you really look at them, atomic and subatomic particles seem to be made of mostly empty space, and there's nothing "solid" to any of them. As in, we looked at something with no "fine texture" yet, and it, being infinitely malleable, provided some for us to study. the objects of the world)! Everything is relative to you. Criticism: "Herbert's 'Deniall,' 'Jordan' I & II, and 'A Wreath'" (The difficulty of writing poetry) by Roberta Albrecht in The Explicator. It seems that whatever else the truth may be, it is certainly elusive. The usual layman's definition for the event horizon says that this is the "point of no return" for things caught in the black hole's gravity well). the goal of finding meaning in diversity, and beauty in truth." As long as we don't have *direct* access to each other's *immediate* experiences, then it's possible (so the question supposes) that my experiences of, say, 'blue' may be entirely different from your experiences of 'blue.' It's no more automatically true than any other book ever written by the hand of man. What 'amazes' nuclear physicists 'amuses' me. Light bounces off electron clouds and into our eyes to be focused on our retinae. ... that she can stand to hear the truth? We have logic and math, but after that and astounding amount of relativity. For all I know, the country of Brazil didn't exist until I visited there ten years ago. Gee, Brian, did you really have to get all 'Twilight-Zoney' on this?You DO know the difference between dreams and reality, you do. A sort of instinctual mathematical ability is present in some insects. Anyway, Brian, we were talking about 'truth' and I was trying to get through Eric's thick skull that 'we can't get 'outside' our minds', just won't do! The thing about maya, this dream reality (if there is such of course) is that while it's technically not real, it is also technically real, in that it's as "real" as real ever gets. :-). The idea of "ONE-NESS." (Incidentally, they're not REALLY the "right" answers. No, it is their life and if killing makes them happy, then I am happy for them.Now for the crux of your concern: If everybody just went around killing because it felt good, they might be able to kill me. Which is especially frustrating because "Is There In Truth No Beauty?" -Just because its a part of the human condition to give merit to the irrational doesn't make it the optimal behavior to be desired, does it? Proof of the supernatural is against the rules. I cannot stress enough that TRUTH is how you feel RIGHT NOW AT THIS PRESENT MOMENT.This is the guiding rule to live by: "Do what feels good to you right now without malice." All I can say is, Wow!I mean, I had this ghost of a memory of this scene and was mostly joking when I described it, and you f&^%ing produced the clip!I can't believe it. Hummingbirds and elephant shrews also come to mind. Take away Observant's book and he's got nuthin'. I can do both. was the third time Diana Muldaur and I worked together; there would be two future collaborations. Now, keep in mind that I'm saying that these undesirable conclusions follow *if* you accept the package deal of materialism, realism, empiricism and the correspondence theory. No. You NAILED IT. (the bitch)! That lunchbox is LSD in a box! The question you're asking is a problem of perception generally, and would still be a legitimate question to raise if one were to, say, repudiate materialism and empiricism (parts of the package deal that I was referring to earlier, and which I concluded leads, logically, to a skeptical dead end). When you're a little baby you don't know the diference between a dream and reality. So whichever one might turn out to be true, I'll already be prepared. --------------------How did you know Tricia? From a scientific point of view, it's a lie. That's us! Surely it's conceptual. I have some familiarity with statistics as well, and what I experience is not dismissable as mere outliers on a bell curve. )I'm trying to interrupt you reasoning at it's weakest point, saying that solipsm and skepticism by exploding that myth that we somehow would 'need' to 'get outside our minds'.There's NO getting out of that cheap trap, that, 'we can't get out of our minds' BUT looking at the trap from the perspective that reality is 'out there' or 'in here' in my mind(a simulated reality) is NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL!My cockatiel example, juxatposes a real reality with a simulated reality and Brian 'shrugs' and points out that to 'disappear' my bird I only need to 'shoo' him through my simulatedly-real window with my simulatedly-real hands.But you LOSE the 'argument' from skepticism or solipsism when you do this, because you are admitting that your notion that the universe might be a simulation in your mind is NO DIFFERENT than if it were not a simulation.I'm saying that one's mind is a streaming consciousness and together with the input from one's senses and memory, one does INDEED create a simulation(sometimes, by all accounts, a very BAD simulation) of one's "world".How would a philosopher envision 'reaching across that divide' between objects themselves(e.g.) None of it has anything to do with "ME"- the identity that I hold as my mind. So after answering "none of the above" like four or five times I just gave it up. I'm not saying that we all must be skeptics, or that reality is unknowable; rather, I'm saying that *if* you accept the modern package deal, *then* skepticism (and perhaps solipsisism) is the inevitable, logically entailed consequence. Oh, well, I figured that you'd be hiding behind other philosophers Eric.My comments don't 'lose' anything by being against them.If you don't want to dispute my comments againt 'MREC' then we'll just 'take them' as defeating it. Remember, God didn't say that He wrote the Bible. Reality may be like "white light" and our consciousness like a "prism.". The only trouble is that propagandists like D'Souza can twist their amazement of their 'defined' scientific laws, try to twist them into 'prescribed laws' for HIS amusement.-------------------Yeah, that always pissed me off too. I could make a heap of cash with one of those licences(licence to preach drivel!) "..we can never get 'outside' our mind dependent senses to see if they 'really' match.."Well, that's how minds work. Time, whatever it is, is very very saturating. The 'time surface' concept of the black holes also helps explain why light doesn't escape, along with the fact that light is subject to gravity as well.The point is that this is why the interior of a black hole behind the event horizon is completely unknown, except by its observable effects OUTSIDE the black hole. KIRK: Yes, there's a great deal to respect about that lady. The very *point* of the argument is that solipsism and extreme skepticism are *not* 'valid' points of view; this is exactly *why* the argument works: it shows that the package deal I was referring to leads inevitably to an extreme variant of skepticism, or even to solipsism. A murderer, in common parlance. There is some evidence that at least some of our dreams that seem to us to require significant time to dream actually occur in a very few seconds. So what's the problem? I think that it 'opens the door' to other types of spirituality or supernaturalism and I don't think that it is necessary to do that.I'm sure that theists of all stripes and colors feel that 'someday' you might come to 'realise' that The Big Brain is GOD.I hadn't read your comment on 'types of dreams' before my comment about the girl who upon waking felt justified in murdering her boyfriend.You can hardly blame me for thinking of a dream as a dream.Maybe you need two different words for those two different notions? Because when we believe that it isn't true, the BB will let us see things that confirm that! I like it too, but saw another possible one, and as they didn't really conflict, I decided to run with both of them at the same time. Like everything else in theory of relativity, tho, time is relative. So in that supposed knowledge I felt free to "shorthand" it and just call it a dream. You have a free lifetime pass to this website. "I cut my finger, I feel pain. Truth speaks to the intellect, beauty to the emotions. Normally, if we saw an armed robbery, especially one combined with extreme abuse, we would try to do something to stop it if there were any possible way. (It would all happen at once, and be a superposition of events made indescernable one from the other.) Everything is a metaphoric extrapolation of your feelings and beliefs.FORDwww.becominggod.org. One to ten. That's all you know. Point being, it makes the idea of truth seem far more complex than it really is. If I believe that it's true, or even suspect it strongly, it will give me confirmation of this, as it has. At least, in its causal form. One of the problems in talking about this stuff is that it invariably sounds like doublespeak. Get all the lyrics to songs on Is There In Truth No Beauty and join the Genius community of music scholars to learn the meaning behind the lyrics. :-)I agree with you about the killing (utterly and completely and more than you know) but the part I wonder about is how you can be happy for the killers? Therefore reality is mind dependant.Inasmuchas that's the way 'minds' work! But, we can defeat pure skepticism and solipsism and the idea that we need to know EVERYTHING or we know NOTHING, and we can do this while not introducing the spiritual or supernatural.---------------------------The idea that we need to know everything or we know nothing is obviously invalid. Jones says she is a telepathtasked with performing a Vulcan mind meld with the ambassador, which has never been done before. What is real is the experience of the moment as perceived by you. As I explained, I feel that it opens a door to the unreal. You DO know the difference between dreams and reality, you do.---------------Ahh, or you only think that you do. Perhaps the Truth is in reality always beautiful, but is perceived as ugliness by those of us that are incapable of understanding it. Like a murder trial for instance. One must be on one's guard against such a thing as well. ....................."But, presumably, we have passed pure skepticism to get to realism and materialism. You know how to get to your car because your mind contains a simulation of 'reality'.Let's assume, that solipsism is true. * Of course if I go that far (I am a variable, for my own amusement) then I must concede even the basic "unreality" of "Ford" and so then why am I talking to you again? Good thing I had some. If killing feels good to you in the moment, by all means go for it- because at the end of everything nothing really matters except for ones pain or pleasure. People remember what you did. Except that I remember it so clearly... And since I cannot be SURE, then the dream could have changed, and there's no way to prove it now. Eric, I don't think you are an idiot anymore than you think you are one. I did not notice that. It went from the hot plasma of a distant star's photosphere to your retina, in zero time. :-)I do this blog thing as much to learn myself, as for any other purpose. and "Who Mourns For Adonais?". It sets up the notion of 'mind' as completely 'cut-off' from and different from solid reality.e.g.TECHNICALLY, we cannot 'see' the same cup sitting on the table in front of us, and TECHNICALLY we can't see the cup as it 'really' is.There is no getting away from the fact that this conundrum leads to pure skepticism and solipsism if it is true.But, we can defeat pure skepticism and solipsism and the idea that we need to know EVERYTHING or we know NOTHING, and we can do this while not introducing the spiritual or supernatural. Of course, a little learning can also be a dangerous thing... and we can do this while not introducing the spiritual or supernatural.-----------------------True. And they didn't start till my mid-thirties. Or so I've read. All that really matters is what I am saying is TRUE to me RIGHT NOW.FORDwww.becominggod.org, Hello Ford! There are numerous examples in the history of self-taught artists which suggest an interrogation of that which we take for granted within the universe of art. I just happen to think that if that door has to be opened (in other words, if science is not on the right track) then my BB scenario is the most "scientific" and generic way to do it... And if one day science were to discover that the basis of all reality is consciousness, is "spirit" and not dead matter, then again I think it will be through some variant of my BB scenario. However, given the nature of the argument I presented (i.e., the assumptions of the package deal, and the interdependent relationships that obtain among its various elements) it's hard to see what sort of argument you could provide! Everyone's mental function is different, and changes over time. Is anybody getting this news? But to be honest I kept finding women lower than my previous "one" and higher than my previous "ten" so in reality it was hardly a precise scale, now was it? Directed by Ralph Senensky. No insult. Yea, well, anyway Brian, that was my point. In fact, if this is a dream reality, a Big Brain scenario, then all our science is the result of our seeking with our logical minds for explanations of what we're seeing in our dream world, and dreaming up the explanations as our answers. ""How about this?If there were no intelligent beings within the universe to experience it, would it exist?The correct answer is, "No, my penis is hard in the morning because I've been holding back a huge piss for the last four hours, now go back to sleep!". However, the question is *related* to the conclusion I referred to insofar as the skepticism about perception (and, necessarily, given empiricism, conception) that the question suggests is precisely a token of the type of (insoluble) skepticism that would follow if one accepts the sort of package deal I was talking about (which included empiricism, materialism, realism and the correspondence theory). )Now, I'm not saying that science is useless, or that we can't know anything, or any other such nonsense; rather, all I'm saying is that if you want to be a strong advocate of science, i.e. Which I think I have before, on the DD boards, if not here. my belief that there's a computer in front of me is true if and only if there is, in fact, a computer in front of me); however, this opens up a large number of problems for those who are realist, materialists and empiricists (hence the development of the alternative theories). Forget about "Truth in General" or even that we need "others" to agree on something to make it true. It's not any kind of truth whatsoever. Most of us, I think, are intuitively correspondence theorists (e.g. :-)Technically, all that you said rings *true. It seems to me that there may be two different kinds of "truth", which are not mutually exclusive. When you go to swat it, it sees your hand coming in sllllooooooowww motion. So either there are indeed neurons firing, or the neurons don't even really exist but are mere symbols of what is going on, things provided for us by the dream itself to answer our questions, to fill in the blanks, as we must do in this dream. I don't think it's irrational but it is difficult.But looking at it now, I think I mean I want to engender an understanding of human perspective in myself. It's all a circular argument. I cannot stress enough that TRUTH is how you feel RIGHT NOW AT THIS PRESENT MOMENT.---------------I fail to see a difference. That book could have once read differently, and as long as nobody did or will ever notice the change, as long as reality itself has changed along with it, there's just no way to tell. If the answer is Bad, then it is false. We have yet to come up with a comprehensive neurological model for the experience of love, but, if we ever do, love could easily be quantified. In that, I knew that I could count on you. Organic processes which are 'at the same time', both 'inside of' and 'outside of' what we consider our 'mind'.Example:- Pain! A little learning is always preferable to none at all. (In reality, I am fairly sure that it's not true). You know it's there but our eyes are evolved to NOT SEE IT! “Is There in Truth No Beauty” is also one of the third season’s numerous “bottle shows,” or episodes shot entirely on the existing Star Trek sets in order to contain production costs. I had to imagine a floor out of nothing to walk on it. Please clarify further. I cannot see into the future and the past holds nothing but warm memories and vague regrets. Do you guys/gals (for tj) think time is extant? Picture this Brian.You are on a jury and the witness, stunning blonde that she is, explains that she dreamt that her boyfriend had been unfaithful and he'd killed her entire family! LOL, oneblood! :-)"I love to see the reaction people have when I tell them I'm spending all this time and money pursuing several degrees that will in the end provide me with a job that pays little more than the one I currently have, and that my chances of getting that low paying job are extremely, *EXTREMELY* small. Things like entanglement and the wave-particle duality, the role of the observer in quantum events, these sorts of things all make more sense if it's all a "big brain...". Like a dream. And, of course, the "future" (which is entirely conceptual, a projection of changes to come based upon those already observed). I liked directing women, but the television industry of the sixties and seventies did not offer women the kind of roles that the movies had in the thirties and forties. Too strange. As far as any computational ability, not really, none that I know of. Not in a bad way, either. question. Even the thought of hunting makes me queasy. It isn't. All are safe links. So by default almost, that would include giving merit to the irrational. Gray can be measured. And at the other end of the spectrum perhaps a sloth or an elephant. THERE ARE two aspects of things - the outward and the inward….The outward has no meaning except in so far as it helps the inward. She explains that she read in a blog, St. Brian's Chronicles it was, yes, that dreams were equally valid, equally real!She begs you to not find her guilty of clubbing her sleeping boyfriend and burning him and the house to the ground. "More like thoughts than particles. The IDIC medallion first appeared in the third season of the original series in the episode "Is There in Truth, No Beauty?" David Frankham (Larry Marvick) also appeared in an episode of The Outer Limits titled “Don’t Open Until Doomsday,” in which he played another victim of an alien in a box that was dangerous to look at. To quote the Square from Edwin Abbot's Flatland "Upward, not Northward" would be the proper analogy for "where" the past exists. Time itself is just a shorthand concept used to understand not only the chemical processes of our world, and acts as a framework to understand our own place in said world. Plenty of time to finish up at the vein and take off before the swat arrives. Science always builds on what is already known. A quite relevant quote I found while watching "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" I believe that once we can fully overcome our fear and doubt, anything is possible. Time. That's like saying that things change, so time is necessary to allow them to change. But what if that too is just what we found when we looked for what causes things? damned. * It's just not an english word. Where does the future?Only the present moment exists.---I thought you were above such flat restrictive thinking. I'm not saying that I personally BELIEVE that the BB is true, but what I am saying is that IF it is true, then we're all going to have one hell of a hard time telling. I've thrown in a few other funny ones today... Up to over ninety now I think. Same result. And to do something that makes you happy or fulfills you, or keeps your synopses firing - well than it is worth doing for pennies as it is for pounds. to be quite beautiful. Votes: 0 Tadeusz Borowski "Is There in Truth, No Beauty?" A metaphor emphasizes a similarity by saying one thing is the other: "Beauty is truth." I had thought that I had already defined my BB scenario as "like a dream" and not literally a dream. One of them might be referred to as absolute truth; i.e. I simply can't make much of it. There is no need to agree on what truth is. If you do not allow me to anticipate future pleasure like that, I can rephrase it all and just say that I'm now, at the present moment, going on a rampage, and boy does it feel good. Where does the future?Only the present moment exists. while the other ACTS like 'outside' cold, hard reality.Okay.. back to assuming that the world is real and 'outside' your head. The minor progression left me wanting chocolate ice cream though. 'discovered' The Cure, and the only song I really like(not saying that the Wrong. Do you know enough to care? They too will actually see evidence that they're right, even if they're not. You are saying that given realism and materialism, that leads to empiricism and correspondence theory which FAILS because of skepticism which can validate(not saying that you DO*) solipsism, which is denying all your premises! Just sayin, is all. Confusing that, is exactly the same as you suddenly 'becoming a babe in the woods', not knowing that this question, "How can we know anything is real? "If yes, then reality is real OR a mental construct that is EXACTLY equivalent of a real reality, which sometimes conflicts with your mental construct of reality that is your mind(not 'often',if you're sane enough)NOTE:- EXACT EQUIVALENCE(not virtual(or virtually exact) equivalence)If true(no real real world) then the exact equivalent equals equals reality therefore false(no real real world). Just the fact that other people also speak of solipsism and their inability to tell if reality is really "out there" or "in here" is no reason to abandon solipsism, you know. And who is to say that they are wrong? Where I can work for a wage and own my own property and seek and expect medical services when I am sick. The answers are: (a) Sugar, Spice & Motor Oil (b) Adonais' Knocked Up Girlfriend and (c) Yeah, sure, I guess, but don't look at a Medusan. "If you're trying to defend the package deal with this, then you're not doing very well. "...then it follows that we can never get 'outside' our mind dependent senses to see if they 'really' match up with the mind independent reality we're studying. You are born without consent and die without consent.The history you know is based on speculation. Although this holiday was originally (and to a large degree still is) based in religion, it seems to me that it has become an affirmation of our good fortune to live and prosper in this wonderful country. ", you are inadvertently admitting that independant reality exists for you to 'answer at'!The 'mind' is a process and we CAN examine it!Even if we imagine that it dribbles down to solipsism, then you are just saying that what YOU think of as 'independant reality' is all in your mind, right?But, it is still part of your mind that is different and examinable from the rest of your mind(your streaming conscious) and you are, in the end, only pushing this 'independent reality' back one step, incorporating it as 'part of your mind', only playing word games.Example.My cockatiel 'might be' all in my mind, but he is independant of my will, I cannot simply 'will' him away.He certainly is part of the process of my consciousness to me, but he is EITHER part of independent reality OR he is a part of my mind that simulates an independant reality.And they are not 'at odds', they're the same thing really for each of us independantly of each other.Other example.. Therefore it is YOU who is begging the question here.You're just implying the first implied premise, that skepticism and therefore solipsism has been defeated then reneging on that implication later, restarting your own argument, chasing your tail, begging. 'Episode Guide. Perhaps what you're saying is that if the energy of a photon COULD degrade, the effect would be a lengthening of it's wavelength, a la Doppler? All pictures below are linked to various things. )I'm still stunned here. Some say that all moments in time exist side-by-side simultaneously in a timeless universe, but our consciousness needed to order reality in a manner where our individual point of view seems to pass through time. So when I started seeing them here in RI about three years ago, I was rather surprised. "This quote fits in well with the philosophy of IDIC--Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations--which is introduced in the Star Trek episode ’Is There in Truth No Beauty?’ The Medusan is a creature considered by humans to be too ugly to bear.