GENIUS FORUMS

Hi Leyla, I don't know what you are up to :) Anyway... " But you haven’t resolved the problem of gravity. " I don’t need to. My reasoning was general and could be applied to each fundamental forces .The dynamics of those forces, even their appearance or disappearance are ALWAYS a function ...

For the PS, I placed the qualifier "true" to not confuse "true static" with that one defined in physic: "Something" that doesn't have any position (space), form, mass, energy, wavelength or any movement is what I call a True Static. In physic a static is defined as som...

How do you know that is actually the future("EFFECTS" that don't even exist yet in this universe that is determining what past and present causes should be? What reason do I have to believe that future effects " that don't even exist yet " are determining their own causes? What ...

I 'm trying to do [show existence, being dynamic, only has meaning when compared to true static] using the most basic element of this physical universe: Space. If you bear with my line of thinking, I reckon we'll get there soon enough. :) PS: Why the qualifier "true" in "true static&...

marcothay : Since, to my understanding, this conclusion: [...] cause-effect separateness is illusory necessarily follows from the concepts I expressed, it isn't possible for you to agree with the concepts but not the conclusion and remain logically consistent. Would you agree? Yes. Concepts you exp...

The boundary of an object cannot be said to exist to our perception, if we do not know precisely where the object begins and ends and where the boundary begins and ends. Have you ever hit your feet or your head with something solid? I think that the perception you felt (pain) tells you where the bo...

Leyla Shen wrote: A cause – empirically, by logical necessity and by definition – necessarily has an effect(s). There would be no point to any discussion on the matter if this fundamental understanding were to be abandoned (and the word left meaningless, therefore). So, unless you accept this whole...

I find many comments on this thread somewhat interesting. I would like to spice them up with few questions. 1) what empirical evidence has to do with observation? 2) When you are observing a mental picture, how you can prove it empirically? 3) How we might empirically demonstrate that our thoughts a...

Leyla ask : I understand the point David is making. I don’t understand the point you are making, though—especially what you are trying to highlight with that “+1 confronting -1” equation. I keep thinking +1 plus -1 = 0 but have no idea of the suggested relationship to cause and effect. [shrug] Davi...

BMcGilly07 wrote:

marcothay wrote:Vegetable "minds" are aware of the energy surrounding them.

Animal "minds" are aware of stuff happening around them.

Human "mind" is aware...TO BE AWARE.

TO BE AWARE of what?

AWARE OF being aware. (who am I?)

Vegetable "minds" are aware of the energy surrounding them.

Animal "minds" are aware of stuff happening around them.

Human "mind" is aware...TO BE AWARE.

Just remember that the MIND is a sub-product of "consciousness", which is a function of AWARENESS.
Ohh... or maybe there are only very few people able to differentiate between them ?

What if there was no wall, but a case of space just coming to a sudden end? - Well, what you have to do is to extend (beyond the "sudden end") a NEW point to look at, thus creating new space, expanding his boundaries. Again, we seems to be stuck on the wrong consideration that space could...

Dear Sapius, or I should call you Ilarious? You ask: " are you trying to say that it does not really matter whether I hit the wall or the wall hits me as far as Space is concerned? Yes, that was the point! But do not let commune sense overcome logic. Commune sense says that if you are on a spee...

At this stage science cannot prove or disprove life after death and/or past lives. But it would be correct to say that there is more evidence that suggest consciousness is something somewhat detached from a body, than evidence pointing out otherwise. You can find it in the fields of: hypnotic regres...

David wrote: No, a vacuum is defined as a region in which all matter/energy is absent. It has nothing to do with cause and effect. Oh yeah? So what is the cause of that definition? Really, I can imagine a vacuum very easily, so, tell me what is the cause of that mental picture? Might be an illusion...

I have been put under for several hours during a surgical operation, and I believe what I "experienced" then is exactly what it will be like after I die -- no consciousness at all. There are several techniques out there that make people to regain their memories apparently lost during peri...

David wrote : On the contrary, given the crucible of evolution, it would be astounding if our mental constructs didn't have a close relationship to the phenomenal world. Natural selection would have quickly eliminated those individuals and species whose mental constructs seriously misrepresented th...

Since the image is not physically inside your brain, nor physically outside your brain, it must be non-physical. But the mental image does not percieve itself. How do you know the image is not pysically inside your brain somehow? Or outside, for that matter? I have long thought of the human brain a...

Is interesting how you start with questioning god existence and still,
later on, taking the op on pondering about Space and/or Vacuum.

BH: There is no such thing as empty space. A vacuum is a mental construct and does not exist in the phenomenal world.

Are you saying that mental constructs are going beyond "phenomenal word"?

Sorry Sapius, I believe that I've not expressed the concept well enough. Let's make an analogy: Imagine yourself observing a cannon shooting at a wall, ok? The cannon is point A, The wall is point B, The bullet (an heavy black ball) is the thing you are seeing to move from pointA to the wall(point B...

By SAPIUS: but say if there is no velocity, which means there is no movement (say like a frozen frame) but there is of course Space (and say things perhaps), which should be possible because velocity is dependant on space and not the other way around, then how do you propose space initiated or creat...

continue from above. CHIKOKA wrote:" Remember that ct is multiplied by the imaginary unit "i". This means that it is not fully space but something else altogether... " Yes, but you have to consider that imaginary numbers had to be invented, only because negative numbers do not ha...

Your argument has a hidden premise: that if something is non-physical, it must also be indestructible. Even if we grant the premise that consciousness is not physical, that in itself does not show that it cannot be destroyed, unless you can also prove that non-physical things are indestructible. Ph...