@Eruca: I was more thinking CIA, FBI, DIA and the ex, but MIB works to.
Forums General Chit-Chat gonna be kind of a downer and ask you this
sometimes yeah, but its pretty normal o: 
@Eruca: I don't know if the internet and I have the same practices, but as a chaote I personally think that to some extent belief and willpower shape reality (look at the double-slit experiment for a practical example of what I'm basing these notions off of) . I like to experiment with different belief systems (religion, philosophy and science), and ultimately take the parts that make the most sense or work for me. It sounds a lot more like I'm one of those "I'll believe anything I see on facebook" types when I spell it out that way... but I do a lot of research on many different subjects and try to suss out the BS from the non... and find a lot of common-ground among various subjects... like religion and science don't usually play well together but these days we're always explaining the unexplained so... moop.
@Glume: I thought the double slit experiment illustrates the wave-like property of light. How does that experiment illustrate the idea that belief and willpower shape reality? Am I thinking of the wrong double slit experiment?
I like to think that everyone does what you do, but in a watered down way because the rest of us might not examine our evidence as thoroughly. The fact that Catholicism and Protestantism are separate despite both being versions of Christianity demonstrates that all people pick and choose things to believe in and the rest is convenience. Well, the religious authorities will disagree with me using so many other words, but invariably, when there are so many ways of practising christianity, they're not all going to be consistent and you have to throw away some stuff.
In the same vein, religion and science only seem not to play well together on the surface. Most of the time, the one has no bearing on the other. String theory (for example) has diddlysquat to say about divine intervention or the afterlife, and same vice versa. I don't see them as conflicting at all. People only argue about which set of evidence is legitimate, and they naturally come to different conclusions as a consequence. Sometimes I feel like certain religious beliefs require people to ignore evidence for certain "immutable" interpretations, but some scientists can be similarly obtuse about spiritual and psychological experiences. I think that's a consequence of being human and not necessarily the faults of religion or science. Plenty of scientists are religious (Einstein, for one), and plenty of religious people benefit from science. Reasonable people can exist with both in their lives because they're made to solve different kinds of human problems.
We gotta Try to explain the unexplained. otherwise how're we to hope to ever explain more than what we can already explain? I think it's only a problem when people are totally enamored with and convinced by the first explanation they find and stop looking for alternative interpretations forever. (The theory of evolution is kind of in this boat. It's the first secular theory that can explain so much and it's very difficult to disprove from within the system, but that doesn't mean it's useless or wrong. And I'll bet scientists would jump at the first hint of an alternative secular interpretation that works as well or better, except they can't find one).
tl;dr: That's cool. I think we might be kinda similar?
I like to think that everyone does what you do, but in a watered down way because the rest of us might not examine our evidence as thoroughly. The fact that Catholicism and Protestantism are separate despite both being versions of Christianity demonstrates that all people pick and choose things to believe in and the rest is convenience. Well, the religious authorities will disagree with me using so many other words, but invariably, when there are so many ways of practising christianity, they're not all going to be consistent and you have to throw away some stuff.
In the same vein, religion and science only seem not to play well together on the surface. Most of the time, the one has no bearing on the other. String theory (for example) has diddlysquat to say about divine intervention or the afterlife, and same vice versa. I don't see them as conflicting at all. People only argue about which set of evidence is legitimate, and they naturally come to different conclusions as a consequence. Sometimes I feel like certain religious beliefs require people to ignore evidence for certain "immutable" interpretations, but some scientists can be similarly obtuse about spiritual and psychological experiences. I think that's a consequence of being human and not necessarily the faults of religion or science. Plenty of scientists are religious (Einstein, for one), and plenty of religious people benefit from science. Reasonable people can exist with both in their lives because they're made to solve different kinds of human problems.
We gotta Try to explain the unexplained. otherwise how're we to hope to ever explain more than what we can already explain? I think it's only a problem when people are totally enamored with and convinced by the first explanation they find and stop looking for alternative interpretations forever. (The theory of evolution is kind of in this boat. It's the first secular theory that can explain so much and it's very difficult to disprove from within the system, but that doesn't mean it's useless or wrong. And I'll bet scientists would jump at the first hint of an alternative secular interpretation that works as well or better, except they can't find one).
tl;dr: That's cool. I think we might be kinda similar?
@Eruca: Here, let me copy-paste from google a bit.
"The double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics is an experiment devised by physicist Thomas Young. It shows that light has both a wave nature or characteristic and a particle nature or characteristic, and that these natures are inseparable."
"When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. ... In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings."
So to me, a self admitted non-sciency person, I see things on the quantum level that have multiple possibilities at once, and the small, passive act of observation forces them to pick a lane... Thats huge. We're influencing the behavior of things by checking to see if it goes one way or another. But thats just an idea I'm "playing with" because I know I don't fully understand it. I've got an actual sciency friend but she's exploding icebergs in Antarctica or something so shes a bit hard to reach.
I also believe that through meditation/gnosis, and a few personalized touches, I can channel my wants into reality. I only believe this because I've practiced it for many years and have seen results. Placebo? I can't say for sure... all I know is it works for me. Of course I only want for simple things, I'm not over here casting hexes on government officials or anything. (I recently did a meditation on financial stability.. within the next three/four days, I got a part time job, I got a job here, I got two private commissions, we got taken out to dinner each night by friends, my husband got about 3 plumbing quotes AND he found ten bucks the day of.)
As for the swapping beliefs thing... its more of a practice of flexibility, so I feel it is quite unlike what most people do. Like you said above, people either cling to or reject old beliefs, which causes religions to fracture. I think every god exists and doesn't exist in equal measure, and every religious tool is only as effective as the person wielding it believes it to be. So, one day I can wake up and be a Bhuddist, I can choose to be pagan for a week, I can be atheist and just focus on mundane things if need be. These shifts can lend me a great deal of perspective, but I mostly like to stay open to everything than choosing one at a time. Except Discordianism... I'm always a Discordian.
I used to be a goth girl who thought a lot of Christians were jerks for no reason.... now I realize they just have a pretty mean god... but Jesus is a really cool dude! Also, maybe Satan did nothing wrong. :vanora_sweat: I just woke up and I have no filter.
"The double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics is an experiment devised by physicist Thomas Young. It shows that light has both a wave nature or characteristic and a particle nature or characteristic, and that these natures are inseparable."
"When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. ... In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings."
So to me, a self admitted non-sciency person, I see things on the quantum level that have multiple possibilities at once, and the small, passive act of observation forces them to pick a lane... Thats huge. We're influencing the behavior of things by checking to see if it goes one way or another. But thats just an idea I'm "playing with" because I know I don't fully understand it. I've got an actual sciency friend but she's exploding icebergs in Antarctica or something so shes a bit hard to reach.
I also believe that through meditation/gnosis, and a few personalized touches, I can channel my wants into reality. I only believe this because I've practiced it for many years and have seen results. Placebo? I can't say for sure... all I know is it works for me. Of course I only want for simple things, I'm not over here casting hexes on government officials or anything. (I recently did a meditation on financial stability.. within the next three/four days, I got a part time job, I got a job here, I got two private commissions, we got taken out to dinner each night by friends, my husband got about 3 plumbing quotes AND he found ten bucks the day of.)
As for the swapping beliefs thing... its more of a practice of flexibility, so I feel it is quite unlike what most people do. Like you said above, people either cling to or reject old beliefs, which causes religions to fracture. I think every god exists and doesn't exist in equal measure, and every religious tool is only as effective as the person wielding it believes it to be. So, one day I can wake up and be a Bhuddist, I can choose to be pagan for a week, I can be atheist and just focus on mundane things if need be. These shifts can lend me a great deal of perspective, but I mostly like to stay open to everything than choosing one at a time. Except Discordianism... I'm always a Discordian.
I used to be a goth girl who thought a lot of Christians were jerks for no reason.... now I realize they just have a pretty mean god... but Jesus is a really cool dude! Also, maybe Satan did nothing wrong. :vanora_sweat: I just woke up and I have no filter.
Was not expecting these deep convos xD
Bummed I missed the whole AI and perception of reality discussion. Always interesting to think about...considering the whole brain-in-a-jar theory.
I know exactly what you mean about talking to a robot tho...people with their small talk and their pleasantries and I'm just like, I don't care about the weather Karen, let's talk about space or something
Bummed I missed the whole AI and perception of reality discussion. Always interesting to think about...considering the whole brain-in-a-jar theory.
I know exactly what you mean about talking to a robot tho...people with their small talk and their pleasantries and I'm just like, I don't care about the weather Karen, let's talk about space or something
please ping me if you need my attention! || stardust || be excellent to each other ♥
[ often multitasking unsuccessfully ] | [ I may take a while to respond, but haven't forgotten you! ♥ ]
qu'est-ce que tu vas chercher?
qu'est-ce que tu vas chercher?
@Glume: Funny, that's not at all how I interpret that experiment. lmao And that's perfectly okay. It's interesting that you're so open to accepting ideas from a completely different belief system. I'd be really interested to understand how you figure out what evidence is legit and what's not. It's something I struggle with on a day to day basis about big and vague things like who I am and what internal experiences. Maybe we can have that chat somewhere else.
Okay, back to Quantum physics. I think an important detail to account for is that quantum refers to a particular scale - really fricken tiny. It doesn't (and can't) describe the properties of things at a bigger scale, like the scale we interact in. Here's an example, whenever we see an object, like a tree, we don't actually see the tree, we see the light that's reflected off the tree that just happens to enter our eyes. Trees don't just crazily change its position or form because a ray of light hit it. It's so much more massive than a photon that essentially, the light doesn't have any an effect on it and the rays that get bounced off and enters our eyes are approximately a veridical reflection of the tree (pun intended). But when what we're trying to see is So Small (like an electron), that a single ray of light has enough energy to change its speed and/or position, the ray of light that bounced off it and entered our eyes would have changed it, so what we see is not actually what it looks like anymore. So all our estimates at that tiny scale, i.e. the quantum scale, are limited in accuracy.
That's how I interpret the "observation changes what you're observing" idea. You can probably see why I'm confused about how that connects to the strength of the human will and such.
Wow, your friend sounds awesome. Why is she blowing up icebergs?
Well, Satan's certainly much more chill about who gets to hang out with him at his house than the guy upstairs. But then again, I'm not attached to that story.
Okay, back to Quantum physics. I think an important detail to account for is that quantum refers to a particular scale - really fricken tiny. It doesn't (and can't) describe the properties of things at a bigger scale, like the scale we interact in. Here's an example, whenever we see an object, like a tree, we don't actually see the tree, we see the light that's reflected off the tree that just happens to enter our eyes. Trees don't just crazily change its position or form because a ray of light hit it. It's so much more massive than a photon that essentially, the light doesn't have any an effect on it and the rays that get bounced off and enters our eyes are approximately a veridical reflection of the tree (pun intended). But when what we're trying to see is So Small (like an electron), that a single ray of light has enough energy to change its speed and/or position, the ray of light that bounced off it and entered our eyes would have changed it, so what we see is not actually what it looks like anymore. So all our estimates at that tiny scale, i.e. the quantum scale, are limited in accuracy.
That's how I interpret the "observation changes what you're observing" idea. You can probably see why I'm confused about how that connects to the strength of the human will and such.
Wow, your friend sounds awesome. Why is she blowing up icebergs?
Well, Satan's certainly much more chill about who gets to hang out with him at his house than the guy upstairs. But then again, I'm not attached to that story.
@Vii: Hey you're welcome to jump in with your 2 cents! Humans acting robot like: signs of declining humanity or human progress in tech? Or maybe the start of the robot uprising?
What's a brain in a jar theory? Is it like, Talking heads in Futurama? Or like, the Ghost in the Shell Major Motoko thing? Actually, I'm familiar with the ghost in the machine idea and decartes' dualism, sounds like the opposite of brain in a jar tho. xD
What's a brain in a jar theory? Is it like, Talking heads in Futurama? Or like, the Ghost in the Shell Major Motoko thing? Actually, I'm familiar with the ghost in the machine idea and decartes' dualism, sounds like the opposite of brain in a jar tho. xD
@Eruca: I'm definitely going to have to link you to some videos on youtube that explain some of my esoteric BS better than I do. The only one I can think of offhand is done by someone who is also a sideshow freak so... its a bit weighed down in theatrics and tends to read very culty. Also, while his ideas are good, and he is a math guy, he only explains it in non-mathy terms so the whole thing SOUNDS bogus if you don't strip away all the hooplah.
But then again, so do I :vanora_smirk:
But then again, so do I :vanora_smirk:
@Glume: What do you mean? You're not super theatrical.
Did I miss something?? lol
Did I miss something?? lol
@Eruca: you've never seen me in person! :p I look like a goth murdered a clown and stole it's clothes. All theatrics all the time.
@Eruca: looks like it too!
You must be logged in to post
Login now to reply
Don't have an account? Sign up for free!
Having you as a Voltie would be awesome.