»A question of presentation«

CaptPostMod wrote:

intell wrote: ...video games are real...as video games. Exactly. If you're a video game character, then once you know this you know the base behind your world (the programming). And if you know the "truth" behind your programmed world, well then you can come to understand it. And if you can understand it, then you can "change anything you want." Thereby no longer making any perceptive truth concrete. It could be changed at will.

Yep, if the character is the One

Capt wrote:

But of course, video game characters don't wake up. Because they have no atman, do they?

I like what CS Lewis said about atman/souls - You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body.

Thus, i would think the questions about video game characters are meaningless. Unless there a metaphorical meaning that i'm missing.

Capt wrote:

But then who gives them free will? The player holds the joystick, so he makes the choices. But then the programmer laid the rules... Is the world the reality or are the choices made in that world a reality? Is the observant participant the soul of the character, or the person who created him? Heavy questions.

Those poor video game characters.

Mario and Luigi are somewhere sitting on a mushroom pondering the meaning of their life. They've already saved the Princess, Koopa's been deshelled, and Yoshi choked on an egg. They wish they had some answers, but they are all the time getting the uncontrolable urge to jump into pipes and do mushrooms. Its destructive and they can't stop.

Yep, it sucks to be a video character.

Psikeyhackr---I am going to kidnap a Wachowski brother and demand they cast you as....well....SOMEbody! I'm sure you'll get that Architect role straightened out.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Evolusionary wrote: It is a clear, sunny day. In Boulder maybe, but it could be storming in New York.

First Response: Welcome to Boulder!
Second Response: It doesn't matter the weather in New York. Or Mars for that matter. If you remove me from my reality where the sun is shining you have not disproved the sun's existence. Only that I can move from one place to another.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Evolusionary wrote: I perceive the sky as blue. To a dog it is grey.

First Response: And to a blind man "blue" is a word---not a color. The inability to see these things by either the dog or the blind man doesn't negate the overall reality. It only points out their inability to see it.

Second Response: The dog's colorblindness has absolutely no effect on the color of the sky. Nor does the rain in New York. (see Response Three.)

Third Response: False argument. The clouds are not "the sky". They are the clouds. Just as putting a blindfold on your face does not make "the sky" black, neither does a cloud make it grey. Nice try

CaptPostMod wrote:

Evolusionary wrote: The foundation of all science is a basis called "ultimate truth" (ironically enough). I've never heard this before. Can you provide a source?

What was Kid's real name---and why did the Wachowski's name him that?
kheper.net...

amazon.com...

I prefer the term "ultimate truth". Most people call it "absolute truth". Einstein (and those who have followed him) use his label "objective reality".

eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz...

Also, Britainnica.com is a good place to research the matter further.

By the way, if the claim is being made that there is not absolute truth/reality then I would invite you to consider the Matrix 1996-97 draft...

Quote:

Cypher: If Morpheus (or a relativist) says you can fly---I wouldn't go jumping out any windows.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Evolusionary wrote: Without some final, irrefutable fact behind everything, then there is no reality. Nirvana.

If there is no reality then nothing is real. If nothing is real then nothing exists...including Nirvana.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Evolusionary wrote: If truth exists, it can be found. If it can be found it can be seen (perceived). If it can be seen, it is concrete, and therefore open to manipulation and change.

I've never heard of any "concrete" being open to manipulation. While nothing is immune from misinterpretation or mis-labeling, that does not mean is it no longer concrete. Would you like to source that particular hypothesis?

CaptPostMod wrote:

Reality is a very subjective term...but the same can be said of the worlds of video games. They exist with a set of unbreakable and definite rules, does that make them real?

Answer: Absolutely. The characters exist on a different plane of reality. But that plane is STILL real. It has no effect on our plane of existence but the lack of it's effect on our plane of reality makes it no less real.

You've actually touched on a point that I am working up for it's own thread. When Morphes is talking to Neo in the construct about "What is real" as Neo's hands slide over the top of the chair. At first I said "no, it is not real." But upon further analysis I have changed that position.

Evolusionary wrote:

...no one person has a monopoly on the truth. This means that sometimes you may find it; sometimes Capt might; sometimes someone else (every once in a while even that Evolusionary guy may find it ). All that is left is for ego to be put to the side

The chairs ARE real. They function exactly the same as a chair in the 3 dimensional realm would. You only need to be in the electronic realm of the Matrix to experience it the same. But the chairs do exist...even in our 3 dimensional world. They exist as code (electronic impulses). And while, as code, they may not function as a 3 dimensional chair would, it makes them no less real (thus the "essence of the 2nd Rennaissance---Respect all forms of intelligence."

I have a big problem with any attempt to say that all reality is relative; that all truths are valid; that there may, or even may not be, a "real" reality. This all smacks of Kantianism (do a search on Immanuel Kant and his ravings that "the mind isn't real"--you'll also be pleased to know that the Wachowski's side with Karl Popper/Kid who took issue with Kant). Either the world exists or it does not. Either there is such a thing as "truth" or there isn't. Either a person can be wrong or they cannot be. But let us not pretend that both of these 2 diametriically opposed positions can co-exist because they cannot.

There is a sky.

It is blue.

And the sun is shining

(breaks out his sun shades)

hlcomic.com...

Here you'll find the funniest comic I ever read. It's about Half - Life 2 video game and you must have played the game at least once to understand the comic and enjoy it.

Some info that will help you if you don't know anything about it you'll find here: en.wikipedia.org...

[ By the way I am a hardcore Half - Life fan and the guy that translated the most complete half life story guide from english to greek.
Original: members.shaw.ca...
Translated: trueredpill.googlepages.com... ]

Aquin wrote:

Those poor video game characters. Mario and Luigi are somewhere sitting on a mushroom pondering the meaning of their life.

My point exactly. They are, because I am. I am Mario (because I am Marios conscious). You are too, when you play Mario. Does this mean Mario has no free will? Of course not. He can jump the koopa coming at him, or he can sit and take it. The choice is entirely up to his atman. Of course, he has no atman, and he is not an atman. But he does have a decision maker. Does that decision maker have a decision maker? Does Mario know he exists--certainly his atman, the player, knows that he (the atman/player) exists.

Evolusionary wrote:

If you remove me from my reality where the sun is shining you have not disproved the sun's existence.

But your truth was that the sun is shining, not that the sun exists. The sun's existence (or lack there of) depends on a whole different set of subjective realities. How do you define real? A few billion years ago, there was no sun. In a few billion years there will be no sun again ...

Evolusionary wrote:

The dog's colorblindness has absolutely no effect on the color of the sky.

The sky has no color. Google "Why is the Sky Blue." It's not that the sky is blue, it is that we perceive it as blue. But the sky is not blue, nor is the blue any more the sky than the clouds.

Evolusionary wrote:

Einstein (and those who have followed him) use his label "objective reality".

I prefer quantum physics. Einstein failed to unite the world of the greater and the world of the lesser.

Evolusionary wrote:

By the way, if the claim is being made that there is not absolute truth/reality then I would invite you to consider the Matrix 1996-97 draft... Quote: Cypher: If Morpheus (or a relativist) says you can fly---I wouldn't go jumping out any windows.

But Neo could fly. How 'bout that!

Evolusionary wrote:

Without some final, irrefutable fact behind everything, then there is no reality. CaptPostMod wrote: Nirvana. If there is no reality then nothing is real. If nothing is real then nothing exists...including Nirvana.

That is why it is called extinguishment (which is what the word Nirvana means).

Evolusionary wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: If it can be seen, it is concrete, and therefore open to manipulation and change. I've never heard of any "concrete" being open to manipulation.

You've never seen a sculpture or a sidewalk? All things are impermanent and we have not found anything that can not be manipulated. Some rules can be bent, others broken. Much of the point of science is to figure out the rules so that we can bend and break them. That's what technology and "progress" are all about.

Evolusionary wrote:

While nothing is immune from misinterpretation or mis-labeling, that does not mean is it no longer concrete.

If you think a work of fiction that has absolutely no reality except in the minds of the creator/s and viewer/s is concrete:

Evolusionary wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: Reality is a very subjective term...but the same can be said of the worlds of video games. They exist with a set of unbreakable and definite rules, does that make them real? Answer: Absolutely. The characters exist on a different plane of reality. But that plane is STILL real. It has no effect on our plane of existence but the lack of it's effect on our plane of reality makes it no less real.

No arguing that. But then we aren't arguing reality (I think reality is real to) we are arguing the necessity and impact of the ultimate base of reality. In the end, the base of any reality can be changed (mod your Nintendo) or eliminated (turn off your Nintend).

Evolusionary wrote:

...that all truths are valid;

I didn't say that. Relative to our position, they are not all valid. All I am saying is that positions change. If there were a nuclear war tomorrow, and all of us were wiped out except Gina and she rewrote the films from memory as The Book of Neo and it became really popular in the new world. Well then her very different interpretation from most of ours would become the dominant and correct truth.

Evolusionary wrote:

But let us not pretend that both of these 2 diametriically opposed positions can co-exist because they cannot.

I'm a nondualist myself

I think that will be the case WW3 notwithstanding.

Quote:

I'm sure you'll get that Architect role straightened out. Whitelaugh

What was wrong with The Architect?

I thought he was obnoxiously cool.

He wasn't supposed to be a GOOD GUY.

psikeyhackr

Not one point of truth....is shaken.

CaptPostMod wrote:

But your truth was that the sun is shining, not that the sun exists. The sun's existence (or lack there of) depends on a whole different set of subjective realities.

I was afraid this would be the response before I even posted but still, I had hoped....

Please explain to all of us how the sun can shine if it does not exist?

Please explain how the sun (not a black hole, but an ambient star) can exist and not shine? But I'll do you one better. The grass is green. Fire is hot. Lipstick is red. Same premise. Nothing changes the reality of it.

CaptPostMod wrote:

The sun's existence (or lack there of) depends on a whole different set of subjective realities... A few billion years ago, there was no sun. In a few billion years there will be no sun again ...

Since this point refutes itself I see no need to respond. My words were "the sun IS shining". Not "the sun will be shining". The reality is that it is shining. When the reality becomes that it no longer is shining then we can truthfully say "the sun is not shining". The two states of being cannot co-exist...but that was self-evident.

CaptPostMod wrote:

The sky has no color. Google "Why is the Sky Blue." It's not that the sky is blue, it is that we perceive it as blue.

I couldn't resist this one.

First Response: Stand in a room full of people (scientists or not) and say that sentence out loud.

Second Response: The sky is blue and has always been blue. Just as your moving me from one geographic location to another does not affect whether the sun is shining, neither does your moving from one geographic location to another to change the ultra-violet spectrum's tint affect the color of the sky. If you leave the sky and venture into outer space then by definition you are no longer looking at sky...whether or not you are looking in the direction of the earth.

CaptPostMod wrote:

I prefer quantum physics.

Please name for me one law of physics or absolute truth/objective reality that quantum physics has disproven.

CaptPostMod wrote:

But Neo could fly.

Yeahhhh....too bad the Logos dropped like a stone.

CaptPostMod wrote:

That is why it is called extinguishment (which is what the word Nirvana means).

It still has to be real before you can "extinguish" it. Please show me something that is not real that can be extinguished.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Some rules can be bent, others broken. Much of the point of science is to figure out the rules so that we can bend and break them. That's what technology and "progress" are all about.

Here I'll differ with a good many people in that I do believe there are some absolute rules that cannot be broken...what we are doing with science right now is figuring out just which rules are concrete and which are not. (By the way, if a rule is not concrete then it is not a rule---it is a suggestion).

CaptPostMod wrote:

If you think a work of fiction that has absolutely no reality except in the minds of the creator/s and viewer/s is concrete...

Since I was not talking about a work of literature this sentence fails to make sense. And since it has nothing to do with what I was talking about--the fact that denial of the truth does not diminish it's validity--I don't see how it addresses that point.

And I'm still waiting for you to give a credible source that says something that is concrete is open to manipulation.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Relative to our position, [truths] are not all valid. All I am saying is that positions change. If there were a nuclear war tomorrow, and all of us were wiped out except Gina and she rewrote the films from memory... her very different interpretation from most of ours would become the dominant and correct truth.

Absolutely not. As I said with the sun analogy, and the blind man analogy, and using your dog analogy, and even this analogy your proximity to the truth does not change the truth. It only changes yourself.

If Gina were to be honest with the post-apocalyptic survivors and admit that she is piece-mealing an old story she used to love then the truth has still not been impacted. What we would have is what we have today---a perspective of history. It won't impact the truth because what she will be bringing is not "The Matrix". It will be something else. Something new entirely (since copyright law mandates that all intellectual property eventually expire from it's original ownership we already have this with Sherlock Holmes and Moby Dick--new deviations on the original concept. But the original concept is still the genuine article.)

The sky doesn't stop being the sky simply because I stop looking at it. It only becomes a place that I no longer see. It's the same with truth.

LOL at "The Great White Way"

What was wrong with The Architect?

I thought he was obnoxiously cool.

He wasn't supposed to be a GOOD GUY.

psikeyhackr[/quote]

I've always thought of you as "irreverant cool".

Evolusionary wrote:

Please explain to all of us how the sun can shine if it does not exist?

And here I thought you were above condescension. My answer would be much like Gina's I'm afraid. You are not seeing the world without time. If a few billion years makes the sun exist or not, then the sun is not an absolute "truth." It is a passing one.

Evolusionary wrote:

Please explain how the sun (not a black hole, but an ambient star) can exist and not shine? But I'll do you one better. The grass is green. Fire is hot. Lipstick is red. Same premise. Nothing changes the reality of it.

All still sensations. Gravity, magnetism... these are at least seemingly permanents and would prove your point much better, wouldn't they (and they are things I can not refute).

Evolusionary wrote:

Since this point refutes itself I see no need to respond. My words were "the sun IS shining". Not "the sun will be shining". The reality is that it is shining. When the reality becomes that it no longer is shining then we can truthfully say "the sun is not shining". The two states of being cannot co-exist...but that was self-evident.

To you, but what about to a Tachyon?

Evolusionary wrote:

I couldn't resist this one.

More condescension--scandolous!

Evolusionary wrote:

The sky is blue and has always been blue.

Except for when the sun sets, then it's pink. Or at night, sometimes it's sorta black.

Evolusionary wrote:

If you leave the sky and venture into outer space then by definition you are no longer looking at sky...whether or not you are looking in the direction of the earth.

So then sky is not real, but merely an Earth based perception? The sky seems real enough though, how can the two states co-exist! Lol! Oh, no!

Evolusionary wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: I prefer quantum physics. Please name for me one law of physics or absolute truth/objective reality that quantum physics has disproven.

First--"Einstein's Relativity differs from classical relativity, because of the way he looked at time. Before Einstein, people thought time to be absolute, which is to say that one big clock measures the time for the entire universe. Consequently one hour on Earth would be one hour on Mars, or one hour in another galaxy. However, there was a problem with this concept."

Seems Einstein sometimes wasn't all that big on "absolute" truths either. And he especially had an issue with your precious "absolute" time that keeps your sun from blinking out of existence.

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that quantom physics deals with a fairly chaotic world, one which does not line up with the relative world of the greater bodies like planets and stars. Wasn't Einstein working or resolving this when he died, and isn't this what string theory seeks to solve? Please explain to me what I am misunderstanding.

Evolusionary wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: But Neo could fly. Yeahhhh....too bad the Logos dropped like a stone.

So did those sentinals

Evolusionary wrote:

It still has to be real before you can "extinguish" it. Please show me something that is not real that can be extinguished.

The world of Super Mario.

Evolusionary wrote:

Here I'll differ with a good many people in that I do believe there are some absolute rules that cannot be broken...

Which ones?

Evolusionary wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: If you think a work of fiction that has absolutely no reality except in the minds of the creator/s and viewer/s is concrete... Since I was not talking about a work of literature this sentence fails to make sense. And since it has nothing to do with what I was talking about--the fact that denial of the truth does not diminish it's validity--I don't see how it addresses that point.

I thought you were talking about the Matrix films? Um... isn't that what we're here for. And I thought this thread was about truth in the films. How some people present truths that are not truths but theories they only wish to be true which are not supported by the films. If that's not what we're talking about, then what is?

Evolusionary wrote:

And I'm still waiting for you to give a credible source that says something that is concrete is open to manipulation.

And again, I say, you've never seen a sidewalk. It's concrete, it was poured into that shape. Didn't just grow like that. A millinium ago the idea that humans could fly was absurd. Now it's done on a daily basis (albeit, without shampoo). Your precious Einstein put forward all sorts of ideas about tearing holes in "concrete" space, didn't he?

Evolutionary wrote:

If Gina were to be honest with the post-apocalyptic survivors and admit that she is piece-mealing an old story she used to love then the truth has still not been impacted. What we would have is what we have today---a perspective of history. It won't impact the truth because what she will be bringing is not "The Matrix". It will be something else. Something new entirely (since copyright law mandates that all intellectual property eventually expire from it's original ownership we already have this with Sherlock Holmes and Moby Dick--new deviations on the original concept. But the original concept is still the genuine article.)

So then the "truth" of the Matrix is not absolute. If it can disappear, if a new version of it can rise in it's place, then it is not absolute.

Noble Truth: All is impermanent.

Evolutionary wrote:

The sky doesn't stop being the sky simply because I stop looking at it. It only becomes a place that I no longer see. It's the same with truth.

Truth maybe, but "absolute" truth? If I can dissolve that truth simply by going into space, then that's a problem. And if one were to scorch the sky, it would no longer be blue. So the truth of that would be gone. If the Earth were to lose all its atmosphere, there would be no more sky... Or would there? Mars may still have an atmosphere. So is that a sky? If there are two skies, then which one is the "absolute" one? Which one am I not allowed to argue for or against as "the sky?"

CaptPostMod wrote:

To you, but what about to a Tachyon?

When were tachyons detected?

And with what?

a postmodernist chaotician just wrote:

I thought you were talking about the Matrix films? Um... isn't that what we're here for. And I thought this thread was about truth in the films. How some people present truths that are not truths but theories they only wish to be true which are not supported by the films. If that's not what we're talking about, then what is?

No this thread is about whether someone could identify truth as such when they hear it. As for what you are talking about, I can't say but I have a clue as to why. One or both of you are going to make my point for me. So to that end, I return those tuned in to more good, bad, and ugly argumentation.

Yo, intell

About that picture you have for a signature, shouldn't it say:

To Know ....or Not to Know

or maybe better

To Know ....or to Believe

Knowing and Believing are two different things.

The Blue Pills believe in their reality the Red Pills know their reality.

And I just noticed. The reflections of Neo in the glasses are actually two different pictures. LOL Talk about oblivious. DUH! I gotta find me another Red Pill to take.

psikey

Evolusionary wrote:

CaptPostMod wrote: The sky has no color. Google "Why is the Sky Blue." It's not that the sky is blue, it is that we perceive it as blue. I couldn't resist this one. First Response: Stand in a room full of people (scientists or not) and say that sentence out loud.

Many of those people in the room, who have spent a thought or two on the subject, would agree.

Evolusionary wrote:

Second Response: The sky is blue and has always been blue. Just as your moving me from one geographic location to another does not affect whether the sun is shining, neither does your moving from one geographic location to another to change the ultra-violet spectrum's tint affect the color of the sky. If you leave the sky and venture into outer space then by definition you are no longer looking at sky...whether or not you are looking in the direction of the earth.

There is no need to venture into outer space to see that the sky is not blue (and to see the sun, the moon and the stars, which are in outer space...). Just look at it by night -> black.

It is the light of the sun that gives our sky a different appearance. Depending from quantity and quality of particles in the air, and from the angle of the sun, the sky appears to us as deep blue (on a clear day), light blue to white (pollution, much condensed humidity...), yellow to red (near sunrise and sunset) etc.

What you see as blue, or red or else... is not the sky but the sunlight filtered and scattered by what is between the sun and your eyes (en.wikipedia.org...)

In that respect, I think, the sky is actually a good example of how one can easily mistake a personal truth for absolut truth.


I think there is an absolut truth. I am convinced, however, that we are limited in our perception of truth:

- We are limited in what our senses enable us to perceive. The animal world gives us examples of what we cannot perceive, but other living beings can.
- In how many dimensions is our brain able to think? How many dimensions are there?
- Do Buddhists, Hinduists, etc. have a point when they say that truth is beyond "worldy" perception?
- etc. etc.

And since I believe that absolut truth is beyond our "normal" perception, I believe there is no absolut truth in a place like this board.
This place lives for the most part from an exchange of personal opinions/truths.
What you think to be a truth is most likely highly dependent from who and what you are; from your biological, cultural, religious, psychological etc. background,... incl. personal experiences.

Just go to the middle east. Visit Israel, and most people will tell you the "truth" that Hezbollah is a terrorists group that has to be fought. Then go to Lebanon, and Hezbollah people will tell you the "truth" that Israel is a terrorist state that has to be fought (this example is, of course, oversimplified and not meant to start another "middle east" or "anti-semitism or not" - discussion).

In that respect I'd be quite happy about a, as you call it, "death of truth". Because this would mean that people would start considering the possibility that there could be another side to what they - in their situation - perceive as the truth.
And I am quite convinced that this alone is the path towards peace,... not only in the middle east, and not only in terms of "war".

And for that reason I am quite cautious in stating my opinion as truth (even though I believe that I am right and - often quite passionately - do try to point out why),... and in accepting other people's opinion as truth.

Einstein is science.

Tachyons are science fiction----until proven otherwise.

Intell has basically made the gist of my entire point. This is not about what is real or what is not real. It is not about what is factual in the Matrix even. This is about does real exist--and if we admit that it exists then do we respect that. To me, respect for "real" means acknowledging it---not denying that it exists.

Real exists. Sometimes Intell will have it. When he does we need to acknowledge it. Sometimes Psikey will have it. When he does we need to acknowledge it. The problem comes in when we develop ego. Ego says that we must be "right", even if we are not "correct". And so now,even the concept of correct must be obliterated, in order that we will not have to change our position. All of this to protect our ego.

When sometime as important as truth exists then it can be found. The most dangerous thing we can do is attempt to relatavize it. Relative truth is not truth at all. It is opinion. This is not a world based on opinions. It is based on rules.

We need not reletavize everyone's view points to create validity. Validity should be recognized when it enters our presence. Recognized---and respected. Just as in this thread I've been able to take issue with certain points but at the same time respect them I can also concede when a greater point is made. When I do that I am not embracing "someone else's truth". I am embracing "THE" truth.

Evolusionary wrote:

I am embracing "THE" truth.

What if I disagree with what you embrace as THE truth?
I am wrong and you are right?

Islamic fundamentalists are just as sure that they can see THE truth. They embrace it, some of them are even ready to die for this "truth".
And we Westerners don't have much of an idea of a "truth" that drives a human being towards a "sacrifice" that kills countless innocent people, even though our world/actions may play an important part in this "truth".
But as long as we say "they are wrong, we are right", we won't solve the problem. Only when we try to understand the other side's "truth", can we reevaluate our own "truth" and - maybe - meet somewhere in the middle.

Moreoften than not, an "I can see the truth" is like closing the door to other options and - essentially - to growth.

Just my humble opinion, of course...

tozy wrote:

- Do Buddhists, Hinduists, etc. have a point when they say that truth is beyond "worldy" perception? - etc. etc.

Perhaps. But then I say that to believe the statement is "true" is to prove it false. Yes? No?

tozy wrote:

In that respect I'd be quite happy about a, as you call it, "death of truth". Because this would mean that people would start considering the possibility that there could be another side to what they - in their situation - perceive as the truth. And I am quite convinced that this alone is the path towards peace,... not only in the middle east, and not only in terms of "war".

I'm not convinced in that. People are not agressive because of "being right", agression stems from a desire to dominate, own, and control. "Being right" is the name of the hands used to move the pawns (who don't stand to gain dominance, ownership, or control at the end) so that the game can move along. Making truth relative or "the death of truth" is just another path to "being right" - a more direct route. It elimates the need to reason along the way.

evolusionary wrote:

We need not reletavize everyone's view points to create validity. Validity should be recognized when it enters our presence. Recognized---and respected. Just as in this thread I've been able to take issue with certain points but at the same time respect them

Now this, imho, is the more mature and difficult, yet practical course. Instead of trying to suppress or ignore our concept of truth by denying its existence or ability to come to know it, (it's not gonna happen), the "evolusionary" idea is to not let the concept interfere with the recognition of it. It doesn't need to die, but it shouldn't blind you either. iow. to borrow the sun metaphor, again, you ruin your sight if you look directly at a light too long but you also ruin it if you try read without one. Nice middle ground.

tozy wrote:

And we Westerners don't have much of an idea of a "truth" that drives a human being towards a "sacrifice" that kills countless innocent people, even though our world/actions may play an important part in this "truth". But as long as we say "they are wrong, we are right", we won't solve the problem.

"Ask not what your country can do for you..."
"Ours is not to reason why, ours is just to do or die."
"If we have to give these b****rds our lives, we give 'em hell before we do!"

Nah. What does the West know about bombing innocent people...cough, cough Hiroshima..cough, uh and sacrificing lives in war?

The thing is when you can't see why another "side" exists at all, seeing anything done by it as "right" in impossible. But like I said, this is a tool. You don't see presentations in the media of the other side's views at all, so the actions it does present without the reasons are just to make them appear unreasonable, which in turn, makes one see no need to reason at all. They don't call it "programming" for nothing.

tozy wrote:

Moreoften than not, an "I can see the truth" is like closing the door to other options and - essentially - to growth.

More often than not, an "I can see no truth" is like slamming the door to any need to consider other options and - essentially - to growth. If "truth is beyond our perceptions", there is no need to consider any options and/or grow.

It is when we erase that "I can see" from it that the statement returns to being more practical. What "we see" doesn't matter.

imho(tep)

psikeyhackr wrote:

Yo, intell About that picture you have for a signature, shouldn't it say: To Know ....or Not to Know or maybe better To Know ....or to Believe Knowing and Believing are two different things.

Evolusionary wrote:

Einstein is science. Tachyons are science fiction----until proven otherwise.

Well Einstein never made a movie using CGI cartoons to explain his ideas. So until he gets his act together and calls the guys at Industrial Light and Magic, I'm gonna have to side with Brian Greene.

CGI Cartoons-1 Advanced Mathematical Proofs- 0

intell wrote:

tozy wrote: Moreoften than not, an "I can see the truth" is like closing the door to other options and - essentially - to growth. More often than not, an "I can see no truth" is like slamming the door to any need to consider other options and - essentially - to growth. If "truth is beyond our perceptions", there is no need to consider any options and/or grow.

You misunderstand me, intell.
I don't say that there is no truth, but that absolut truth is beyond our perception, as in our inability to truly understand endlessness in space and time.

I think there is such a thing as personal truth for individuals, groups or kind. However, to misunderstand personal truth for absolut truth does close the door to growth, because it disregards potential aspects unknown to you, due to whatever your background and situation are...

Validity can change with new information.

tozy wrote:

Validity can change with new information.

More importantly new information can change validity. Once we know a law of physics, we are able to play with it.

But we are relative creatures. Super Mario just knowing the stuff that defines his reality is 1's and 0's can't affect that reality. That's where mysticism and magic seem to go wrong to me. Super Mario couldn't just start chanting "101100100" and expect the koopas to all turn into harmless rocks. He'd have to find a way to interface with the binary that goverend his world. This would very likely require finding out how the hardware that this binary exists on works. And being internal to the hardware, he could change the binary all he wanted with his science, but he wouldn't be able to change the hardware. That would be the base of his reality.

But then, any kid could come along and through an accident smash Mario's hardware. Mario's absolute truth would be reduced to so much impermanent rubble.

So to relative creatures, relative truth is vastly more helpful than ridiculous truth but absolute truth is only absolute relatively.

tozy wrote:

I don't say that there is no truth, but that absolut truth is beyond our perception, as in our inability to truly understand endlessness in space and time.

In many aspects, yes. It seems so.

How'd we forget what Larry Wachowski has to say about enlightenment and truth? According to Larry, Satori "occurs after he has abandoned the perspectival nature of Truth."

Quote:

as in our inability to truly understand endlessness in space and time.

Are you saying that all human beings have the same intellectual limitations? What if 1/10th of 1% can understand things that 90% cannot?

Isn't that part of what The Matrix is about? Why did Neo sense that there was something wrong with the world yet most people did not?

Beware of Normals although real sci-fi fans call them Mundanes.

psikey

Truth does exist. Once you find it, by it's very nature it is then absolute---otherwise it's relative...and you know the rest.

If truth is only a matter of perspective then there is no truth at all. Perspectivity robs truth of it's ability to exist. Something cannot be "a" truth and at the same time not be truth. That would mean there is no such a thing as a lie or a non-truth.

The Apostle Paul was quite correct. A person can become so intelligent that they become unintelligent. You can be so smart that you lose the ability to retain common sense.

Perspective Truth: I can say something is true, you can say that exact same thing is false and we can both be correct.

Objective/Absolute Truth: I can say something is true, you can say that exact same thing is false. There is no way we can both be correct. We can both be wrong, but we cannot both be right.

I met a lady at the bus stop. She says Elvis is playing in concert on the bus bench next to us. There is nothing on the bus bench and Elvis died 3 decades ago. Do I call her crazy----or do I break into a chorus of "Heartbreak Hotel" with "the king"? After all, if there is no "the" truth, then that means she cannot be "wrong". Which means she could be right and my belief Elvis not strumming out the oldies next to us is not in fact the truth but is only my "perspective".

I guess the overriding notion among people who feel that way is that man is an insignificant creature who is the lowest of all creatures and is not deserving of mastering the universe. I know that is not true. We are the only animals to ever contemplate our place in the universe. We are the only animals who can master truth---absolute and otherwise. As Psykey pointed out, if one wishes to relegate themselves to the ranks of not being able to master the most rudimentary concepts of life such as truth and reality, then they are welcome to assume their position...at the bottom of the food chain. I"ll take my place at the top.

Great post BTW, intell. Great.

psikeyhackr wrote:

Quote: as in our inability to truly understand endlessness in space and time. Are you saying that all human beings have the same intellectual limitations? What if 1/10th of 1% can understand things that 90% cannot? Isn't that part of what The Matrix is about? Why did Neo sense that there was something wrong with the world yet most people did not? Beware of Normals although real sci-fi fans call them Mundanes.

Depends from what we are talking: scientific or spiritual.

In spiritual, I'd say we are essentially absolut truth (I know, Capt., but to me it is a question of definition: perspectival and absolut truth is the same problem as the self and the Self: personal <-> transpersonal, I <-> All, perspective <-> beyond perspective).
So we are able to perceive absolut truth. But not with our senses (-> after being blinded by Bane, Neo can "see" the world of light...)

In scientific, I believe, our senses enable us to sense only a certain spectrum of what could be sensed. As opposed to a bee or a snake, for example, we can neither see UV-waves, nor IR-waves. Same goes for the ability to understand. We say, animals don't have I-consciousness, or they can't understand the concept "future".
Who says that our brain, as it is now, is built to understand everything that could be understood? We can grasp 3 dimensions, most have a problem with 4, How about 5 or 6?

We may be at the peak of evolution, but I doubt that evolution has reached the peak of the pyramid.

And that get's us back to spirituality:

Beyond the senses is the mind, and beyond the mind is reason, its essence. Beyond reason is the Spirit in man, and beyond this is the Spirit of the Universe, the evolver of all.

When the five senses and the mind are still, and reason itself rests in silence, then begins the Path supreme. - Neodämmerung


Evolusionary,
Past M1 we percieved as truth that the machines were bad and man was good.
Given new information in Reloaded and, even more so, Revolutions, we had to reevaluate this truth quite a lot.

And this is what I am trying to express here: that we should be very careful in evaluating what we percieve as the truth as an absolut truth, because there are so many factors we just don't know; our perspective is limited....

intell wrote:

In many aspects, yes. It seems so.

great post!