Reality & Truth

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Yahunyahti, Aug 26, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I'm taking a Russian class this semester.
    I went to youtube and typed in "Russian Singer" and that came up.

    The fact that you drew a homosexual conclusion somewhere in that, is very telling.
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    In other words you think you're the questioner controling this discourse.

    Actually I thought you were joking.

    Because as I implied being Objective is without bias while being Subjective is with bias. The only thing is I didn't use the word "Bias" I didn't have to because The example spoke for itself. If you can't see it then you don't know the difference between subjective and objective.

    I'll give you another example.


    If you told me a buddhist man walked on water without any trick or illusion to it Gravity would tell me that is physically impossible and you are being subjective. Why are you being subjective and why am I not being subjective? Because the laws of science know that is not possible yet you keep arguing it is, though to be objective I would ask you to physically prove it to me.
    test
  3. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016

    Yet a man may float on his back, on top of the water?
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    You saw the documentary about a month ago posted in hook-ups didn't you?
    test
  5. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Yes and no. Because not all people know how to float on their back in the water. Infact, not all people can swim either.


    Are you suggesting walking on water is the same as floating on your back?

    It seems to me, floating on your back and walking on water is like comparing the Buoyancy of a wiffle ball to the Buoyancy of a rock contacting with water.

    Like I said, empirically prove walking on water is physically possible without any trick or illusion to it, to me.
    test
  6. test
  7. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [youtube]KSLUwmJOo_M[/youtube]


    Do you consider this proof that it could be possible?
    Or does it only count if a human being does it on camera?
    test
  8. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I would need to see a person do it azeus. A Chinese Water Dragon doing it isn't the samething. but you did prove lizards can walk on water.
    I agree with you there.

    The lizard is light weight, has webbed feet, and is in continues fast paced motion it would be like skipping a small smooth rock across the water only the lizard can keep moving his own momentum. So yes I need to see a human do it.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Side Note: I agree with Dawkins. A Miracle, by definition, is something which defies the laws of nature (whether that be worldly or universally). But, nothing can defy nature. If it occurs in nature then there must be a natural chain of events, thus the miracle is not actually a miracle at all, it is just an unexplained event.

    That said, if walking on water were possible . . . then science would have to reevaluate the law which states that it is impossible and figure out how it is possible. That doesn't mean that science is wrong, it simply means that it is wrong on that subject.
    test
  10. What I'm talking about is partially quantum mechanics, partially basic logic, partially biology, partially evolution, partially philosophy, partially dependancies, partially infrastructure, partially math.

    It's all intermeshed together!

    I provide links whenever I can to make the transition easier.
    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    test
  12. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Correct. Which sceince should figure out How and WHY.

    If you can prove a human can walk on water then I suggest science should reevaluate the law. Now you're talking science.
    test
  13. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    So what do you call this cluster fuck of partialities?
    Do you have a name for it?
    test
  14. I post it every time, but apparently, no one reads it.

    This is the 6th time I've posted this link now.

    Sixth.

    I expect it to be ignored just as everything else.

    http://www.roxie.org/books/shoulders/book.html
    test
  15. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    test
  16. Here's why this is not poof!

    "The prophet is not diverted by illusions of past, present and future. The fixity of language determines such linear distinctions. Prophets hold a key to the lock in a language. The mechanical image remains only an image to them. This is not a mechanical universe. The linear progression of events is imposed by the observer. Cause and effect? That's not it at all. The prophet utters fateful words. You glimpse a thing "destined to occur." But the prophetic instant releases something of infinite portent and power. The universe undergoes a ghostly shift. Thus, the wise prophet conceals actuality behind shimmering labels. The uninitiated then believe the prophetic language is ambiguous. The listener distrusts the prophetic messenger. Instinct tells you how the utterance blunts the power of such words. The best prophets lead you up to the curtain and let you peer through for yourself. "

    I'll continue to provide links so that you can peer through the curtain.
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Do you have the ability to just answer the question?
    test
  18. x - calli

    x - calli Guest

    that was an answer, though.. that book answers a whole lot
    test
  19. At least someone is reading! Thank you!
    test
  20. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Actually ghet, I read on the shoulders of giants.
    I especially liked the Monoploy analogy.

    Ghet, Do you suppose by 2040 man will nolonger be solely biological?
    But rather a Biological and Technological combination of advancement?

    The direction we're heading seems to foretell futuristically that nanobots
    will be injected into our blood streams inorder to host on invader viruses
    keeping our immune systems from deterating so we live healthier and longer.

    It has also been said that nanobots will be implanted into our brains
    functioning on our neural cells inorder to reprogram such diseases like
    parkinson's disease and to imporve our minds. It has also been said that these nanobots will be able to copy our personalities (sort of like how a computer makes a copy of a hard drive disk) So even though we're dead our minds thanks to nanotechnology have been cloned and therefore can be rebooted into another like organism. Thus, Could this be the fountain of youth? The futurist seem to think so.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)