Re: Afterlife?
By: Angus McLeod to Dali's Llama on Wed Oct 03 2007 12:39:00
> between 1:00PM and 3:00PM on the radio. "I don't actually exist because I
> am a figment of my own imagination". "YOU don't actually exist because
> all you are is a series of electrical impulses impinging upon my brain."
> "Nobody can love you unless you love yourself, so love yourself and
> everybody will love you!"
That's odd, since most of what I'm speaking, as mentioned before, comes
directly from the "hard" sciences - especially physics.
I nevedr claimed that nothing exists - only that we don't perceive existant
reality directly.
And I certainly said nothing about love. Oh well.
>
> > Is that because you don't want to show your own lack of ability to
> > grasp them? Or perhaps you just prefer to act that way?
>
> Don't use the brown acid.
Case in point. I guess, then, that Stephen Jay Gould, Roger Penrose,
Immanuel Kant, Karl Popper, etc. were all just burnouts, hmmm?
>
> > To a great degree, it is. Perception is mostly a matter of habit. I cou
> > go on to explain, but you've made it evident that you're not interested i
> > debating - just attacking.
>
> Debating? Your response to every debate is "It isn't really happening,
> you only *think* it's happening" or some other wqually juvenile junk. I
> sure don't want to debate with you if that's all you have to offer.
>
I beg to differ. My point is, still, that it all *is* happening, as an
emergent pattern of complexity, built upon simple iterative systems with the
element of chance thrown in (see:Heisenberg), over time. However, our
perceptions *are* an after-the-fact interpretation of reality, not reality
itself.
Surreality is just an illusion.
---
■ Synchronet ■ [aceshigh.dyn.dhs.org] - Come fly our friendly skies!
|
