'reality' - Page 4

While possible of course, you are still making assumptions on the exposure levels of any cats that do this, probably not factoring the significance of brain differences and life spans, and are not taking into account what people see in terms of physicaly see and what perceptions come after, what I mean by this is that (especially in the case of projection tv we are really talking about moving shadows, if you are trying to tell me that they can't see a shadow then I'm pretty sure you'd be wrong (although its possible for all I know), if they only saw blurs and couldn't make out the images then thats fine, but doesn't mean that they couldn't spear (because they couldn't see) a black blob on a white screen.

Does any of that actually make any sense?

These kinds of people are very used to flickering light ans shadow images due to life around fires

I see what you're saying but think about the fact that these are "electronically produced" images and shadows. Electricity isn't something they're familiar with so the frequency that creates isn't in their perception of reality. A shadow created by a fire carries a completely different freqency and requires a completely different kind of perception than electronically produced images would. Does that make sense?

To some extent, what frequency are you referring to for one, if you mean like frame or flash speed that doesn't affect shadow, something constantly blocks light, but if you are referring to some sort of "radiolike" emission, then I'm really not sure what you are talking about.

The light source of a projector is actually more stable than a fire's, its whats running in front of the light that affects the strobing. Projectors used to be run by hand and work better but not exclusively with electrical light sources, its actually not a very technical or electronic device at its core, and especially for old machines. They are not however electronically produced images unless its a specific and newer type of projector, which still just emits light and patterns of shadow light and color.

By frequency I mean how it travels, or perhaps the speed at which it travels . ? . (I'm no scientist but I know there is a difference between light from a fire and light from a bulb.)

Whether projectors are more "stable" or not is irrelevant in this case. Our brains are programmed by the world around us, to perceive that which we experience as reality. And if our brains have never perceived electrically produced light, it doesn't exist, until programmed in.

I totally disagree there, if someone shines a flashlight in their eyes they don't just not see it, they often freak out.

The concept doesn't allow for someone to ever see electric light, unless they go off the one argument of developmental learning stages (like if you don't hear and learn to talk by a certain age you never will, which as far as I know is a theory), and you seem to be speaking of a specific frequency exposure, which in the light spectrum both fire, sun, and electric lights light is all in the same spectrum, they can produce others as well that we are exposed to (especially the sun) but we can never see, we don't in a lifetime suddenly develop ultraviolet vision or infrared vision, even though we are constantly exposed to them.

As for light speeds, from what we know, light speed does not vary. Intensity is another issue but people see the sun pretty good, and actually, the brighter the light the better you see it. Electrically based light is still just photons and what all. Its all light in the spectrum of light visible to the human eye. I would have to see this article and most likely we would have to ask the guy who did this what he meant, but ya I was wondering what the basis of your posistion was and I think you covered that, was the documentor referring to some sort of frequency theory?

I first heard the story on the radio and from there was directed to a website. I can't remember where exactly but I'll see if I can find it again. You have raised a lot of questions and I think it would be good to give it a more in-depth look. I don't recall anything specifically about frequency being in it, that was just my thoughts on what might explain how it worked. Like I said if I find it we'll both know.

Until then...

Ack, the suspense

It's pretty logical that they couldn't see the animayed pitcures. Actually, we don't see things 'directly', we see them with the help of our memory. If there is a chair in front of you, the brain won't take all the time of interpreting all of it, it will see a few features, and then pull the rest out of memory.
That must have been the prblem with the tribsmen.

and that would leave the difference between seeing abstract images and discernable shapes, not a blank screen to a filled one.

Yeah, I mean they would've seen something, like as u said, just random shapes etc.

Gosh, the Catholic Church has really creates some deep issues.

I think all of you are smarter than I am because I got lost by the third entry. Especially when Angel of Death said "There is no differennce between you and the tree in front of you." I stopped thinking at that point and said the most-often repeated word of the human race: Huh?

How do you know if the tree in front of you exists? Well, not-so-smart people like me try touching it or pinching ourselves, our banging our heads against the tree.

I believe the ephemerality of all entities makes us feel like life is an illusion because nothing lasts. Makes you wonder if we'll last. What's real? Is real something that lasts? Does the attribute of death make it unreal?

That's why I love you people. If I asked this question to one of my friends, their minds would freeze and then return to "reality." Oh God, I am so trying this out tomorrow. In the middle of a conversation, I'll ask my friend "Whats real?" and I'll get a Homer Simpson response and a good laugh! This is what people like us do for entertainment. Make fools of others. Do we feel superior to them? Ah, I digress again!

Apparently, certain sects of Chrisitanity aren't providing satisfying answers to deep thinkers like us. Here's another theory, maybe we as humans who have only managed to use 10% of our "minds" (what is a mind?), can not understand reality. None of you have mentioned this. Did id ever strike you that thought has it's limitations?

The mind, like the body, has its limitations. And, we can not depend on it either. How many of us will be able to rationalize thoroughly when we're 93 years old and our minds wander? Our minds are tools that are not universal. Think of it as a wrench. You can use a wrench to fix a car, but not eat your food.

What am I trying to say? Maybe we can understand reality by "feeling" our way through, rather than through thinking alone. I have no idea what I mean when I say "feeling". It's something different than thinking, maybe emotions or spirituality or something.

Agh, my mind really hurts from all this thinking. Or does it? Is pain real? Let me just throw this book in my hand at someone.....Yes, pain is real. None of you can argue with me because the bruise I just got is VERY real. There you go, reality is painful! I have achieved enlightenment!

Ok, can we watch our written expressions of hate of religion? I understand that we're trying to express our ideas to gain insight, but can we do it in a way that's not so disprespectful (regardless of whether or not you respect Buddha, God, Jesus, or Micheal Jackson).

I seem to be on a roll here, folks.

Before I start, can someone tell me how I can get a picture to come up with my entries?

SleepingWrath, have you ever taken Sociology 101? If you do, you may question your words "most people only know what theyve been told. but there are those of us who think for ourselves. we are what make the world what it is today."
Sociology (whether it is "real" or not, or some crap we're fed) says that we are not independent thinkers. If we are all such independent thinkers, why do we all wear jeans? Why do we define women as homemakers when in different (and VERY RARE) cultures, men are the homemakers? We are not completely independent. Maybe only 22.39002%.

I just love expressing my ideas, don't I?

Leftwood, you bring up an interesting point when you said that we don't even have the option of not sinning because it's claimed to be part of man's nature. Just like eating, growing, and parents. It's the way things are. And I HATE THAT STATEMENT AND ANYONE WHO SAYS THAT. Yes, I hate myself. See, this is why I can not depend on logical thought because it confuses me.

Leftwood: "The truth seems to be that everybody is just both right and wrong, there are 2 sides to every story, there is truth and lies in all we say."
There you go folks. Another genuine example that our minds have limits. Leftwood here has accepted an irrational thought that life is both positive and negative, like a neutron (Yes, I am taking General Chemistry 1 and my final is in two weeks and I am sitting and writing down my ideas at 2:04 a.m.)

Oh great. Like it wan't enough that that I couldn't define reality, now I can't define space? What's next? Not being able to define booger?

We can't grasp the 'truth' or 'reality' by our minds. Attolia when I said the tree in front of you and you are the same, you found it difficult to grasp because you were trying to comprehend it through your mind. As you said, to grasp reality, mind alone won't do, the mind only forms an image of reality, not reality itself.

Regarding us not being able to not-sin, thats not neccassarily true. Sin means adultry, murder, robbery etc. Insulting someone, lying etc, thats not 'sin'. So if I want, I can choose not to sin, ofcourse, although I can't prevent myself from doing wrong