Once again labeling stuff. Creating your own perception of someone based on the "norm".

that's usually where people draw the line between "credible resources" and everything else basically...Shouldn't we be able to decide if something is credible or not ourselves?
edit:i'm agreeing with wut ur saying btw.

This post was edited by sam2468 on Jan 25 2012 09:19pm

Yes we should, that's why there's no credible sources whatsoever.
But people like Derek tend to not think by themselves and/or not believe it until he reads a book from a credible source "which is a delusional concept".

And also many times ending up believing in some arranged lie just because one if his credible sources said it was true ^^ total joke.

Priests are that kind if credible sources, and look how many innocent people follow what they say to the brick lol

lol resorting to personal attacks? You're just making things up, too. You have no idea how I think, or what I think about. I study physics this is true - and you think I'm ignorant because of it? I'm sorry I rely on tried and true methods of derivation and logical deduction. I'm sorry I denounce your "pseudoscience" as what it is. I'm sorry you believe quantum mechanics agrees with you when it doesn't. These people don't understand it, and neither do you.

I've already explained my perspective on your ideology. I'm sorry you didn't listen. I'm sorry you can't actually back up the things you say. As Colbert put it, "I'm saying it again so it's right." That's a good tactic (if you're trying to make people laugh).

Haha bugged that someone actually called you out? Why don't you try explaining yourself instead of throwing a fit?

For what it's worth (mostly for the other guy), my view is simple: reality is independent of the observer. I'll start there. Consciousness acts on and interacts with reality to create experience. For example, light enters your eye, sets off a series of chain reactions in the brain, and the output is a visual image. What you see is not reality. It's your conscious interpretation of reality. I agree to an extent that consciousness creates something. I disagree that it creates everything. There is, I feel, something entirely independent of conscious experience. I believe 'conscious' is a characteristic only life possesses, and I feel, it follows, that it can't be universal (the entire universe isn't alive, and life wasn't always present). I gave omghacks2 an example of how I see the difference between reality and conscious experience -- color. You and I both see something that is green. You may see green your own way, and I may see it my own way; however, we both agree that it is green. The color green is absolute, but how you and I perceive green is subjective.

So in a sense, I agree that the universe is abstract bits of information. But it was there before something conscious experienced it.

I guess a simple way to sum it all up is you can't change the rules. By rules, of course, I mean how the bits of information interact with each other.

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Jan 25 2012 11:22pm

When Jesus was alive he didn't help everyone, he could only help those who searched for him.
Truth is the same, you can only know the truth if you search for it.

Saying that the sky is red and not blue and therefore base and create theories out of that thought is not a good idea.

First im gonna learn everything about the sky that there is to know already, then I'll create my ideas and new theories.

This post was edited by omghacks2 on Jan 26 2012 12:48am

Well I tried to edit my post once again and this time wouldn't reply but I couldn't so here's a new post..

@derek
As I previously said when I read your posts and its like im traveling back in time 40 years.

Funny thing is you have no clue what you're saying, it's like a mixed up salad without sauce which you can't identify any ingredient from and still just a little part of the whole meal.
I hope God exists so he can help you. Since you wanna talk about stuff without even doing a little research about it to get the basics at least.

Or maybe its just like many scientists that study this unified theory say: "the consciousness matter reality relation understanding is not for everyone"

I guess those will just have to go and use the old "have faith man" method ^^

Oh well..

That's sort of the fundamental principle of what I just said, but I'm guessing you either didn't read my second post or didn't quite get it.

In short, what pretty much all those physicists you just posted said was this: the universe is constructed of abstract potential and abstract information. For example, concrete is hard. White is white. Glass is clear, breakable. My mug has water in it. The sky is blue. It takes the observer to create an experience out of it.

Now of course, this always lead me to ask the question, "Well what does abstract information look like?" But now I realize, that question is about as plausible as asking where the universe began. "Look like" is something that starts in the brain, so asking what something looks like without the brain doesn't make any sense.

What physics does is attempt to measure and define the relationship between these bits of information. We describe things like thermodynamics, gravity, magnetism, very fundamental ideas which are independent of the observer. Quantum mechanics gets a little fuzzy around this area, but I can't speculate on if it's because it begins to depend on the observer or if the methods and mathematics are incomplete. I do know that quanta exhibit uncertainty with or without measurement. What you need to understand is measurement and consciousness don't necessarily coincide, and generally the measurement discussed in quantum physics is using external devices to extract information from a system with a very limited energy input.

So like I said: If you took control of your brain, you could change how you experience everything, but you can't change the rules.

Anyway, if you're just gonna say I don't understand it again, then don't bother. I guess both my last posts are more for discussion with Sam and less for you.

This post was edited by Derkaderk on Jan 26 2012 10:05am

@ the first 2 posters talking about reality and settings your mind to things and releasing your ego... reading you attack derek and continue to argue with mumbo jumbo philosophy theory that isnt even original to you CLEARLY SHOWS you have released your ego

way to lose your "credibility"

good vid