Who are we?

[Clarke]

Originally Posted by Mika

Simply put I don't give a damn if your scientiic or spiritualist .. what I demand of myself or others is the principle of Tolerence .. we all 'see' through our own single lens .. what we are encouraged to do is recognize that FILTER .. and that we are not God's unto ourselves, but a whole and composite of each other.

Why do people keep using these vision metaphors? The whole idea of "lenses" and "perspectives" implies 1) there's an underlying object that we are looking at through the lens and 2) it is a 3D (read: very complex) object.

I'll expand on that last point slightly: visual perspectives in 3D exist because our eye processes a 2D information. This isn't true for 1D or 2D objects though; we can see all of those, because anything being obscured is physically impossible. Our eye can process the entire object simultaneously.

In the case of philosophy, logic isn't a lens on reality. It's the glass the lens is built from. Or, equally, it is a 3D perspective, built by taking all the infinite 2D ones, layering them on top of each other, and taking out the bits that shine through.

To keep going with the vision metaphors, logic itself is not a 3D object that can be seen from various perspectives; it is 1D. There is nothing hidden behind anything else, there are no shadows to confuse the viewer; it is as clear as a single line drawn on a blank sheet of paper.

There is no single truth as what is true today, will not be tomorrow, or vice versa, rather truth as we understand it, just llike the universe is ever expanding.

It is, will be, and has been true forever throughout all conceivable times and spaces, that the 11th integer cannot be evenly divided into any amount of smaller integers. No information will ever change that, nor is there any opinion to sway. It is more than fact; it is immutable, eternal truth.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Clarke

Why do people keep using these vision metaphors? The whole idea of "lenses" and "perspectives" implies 1) there's an underlying object that we are looking at through the lens and 2) it is a 3D (read: very complex) object.

I'll expand on that last point slightly: visual perspectives in 3D exist because our eye processes a 2D information. This isn't true for 1D or 2D objects though; we can see all of those, because anything being obscured is physically impossible. Our eye can process the entire object simultaneously.

In the case of philosophy, logic isn't a lens on reality. It's the glass the lens is built from. Or, equally, it is a 3D perspective, built by taking all the infinite 2D ones, layering them on top of each other, and taking out the bits that shine through.

To keep going with the vision metaphors, logic itself is not a 3D object that can be seen from various perspectives; it is 1D. There is nothing hidden behind anything else, there are no shadows to confuse the viewer; it is as clear as a single line drawn on a blank sheet of paper.


It is, will be, and has been true forever throughout all conceivable times and spaces, that the 11th integer cannot be evenly divided into any amount of smaller integers. No information will ever change that, nor is there any opinion to sway. It is more than fact; it is immutable, eternal truth.

I think what they mean by a lens is something like this video explains.

Perceiving Reality - YouTube
(mostly pay attention to the part about us being a box and not perceiving anything fully. IDK what the kabbalah stuff is, I just used the video for the box/lens thing)

watch the first couple minutes at least, he's a bit wordy I know, but what he's saying is that we are like a box attempting to perceive things, but we don't perceive anything for what it actually "is" but what our senses perceive it to be.

I think that's what people mean by a lens at least. That we are perceiving reality indirectly from "inside the box" instead of for what it actually is.

[Human No More]

By definition, gaining a deeper understanding does not reduce anything (except for ignorance). It causes superstitions and incorrectly held beliefs to be abandoned, certainly, but for that reason, those can not be regarded as 'truth'. By making basic observations and predictions, anything can be understood with time and the correct methodology. One of the main goals of current research is to unite all current theories into a single system that is capable of explaining all behaviour from the subatomic to the biological - it is just that without that, some parts, such as the latter, have progressed far faster than others.

[Advent]

I think you'd get the best definition of 'who we are' by having a good viewpoint in both sides of the spectrum, spiritual and scientific.
Not only that, but it seems to make you a lot happier about humanity as a species.

[apache_blanca]

Eltu, I've read your OP & skipped all the debating.

As for the OP - I see it rather philosophical, a koan even. I liked it & the video, too: it looks like a different universe with its different laws!

As for my point of view - my signature says it quite fine.

As for the debates... I stick to old good Dale Carnegie, not a spiritual, neither a scientific person strictly speaking, but a very common sense one; a professor of public speaking who had the opportunity to witness, judge & participate in thousands of debates. "The best way to win a dispute... is to stay out of it!"

In my terms:
"When a respectful & enriching exchange of opinions turns into a debate... Run! Definitely run!"