₦airaland Forum

triplechoice:
You're using not seeing the "entire spectrum" to argue that nothing is objectively real ?

Yes or no ?

Who Tinubu is , is not the same as what he is ,the entire spectrum which "we" cannot know . You seem not to know the difference .

Because the former can't be known, doesn't mean he is not "there" He is .

The entity ,Tinubu, is not an illusion that "we" have collectively agreed to exist .

Do you dispute that ?

We're saying everything is an 'illusion' to the degree that they are not being perceived in whatever original state they might have been, and that the observer being unique is incapable of observing ANYTHING exactly the same way as the next person.

Secondly when perceiving, The mind 'makes up things' and 'completes' the parts to create meaning relative to it's acceptances or agreements of what it feels is real. This phenomena introduces an 'eraticity factor' to the very tool humans depend on for perception.

Given the above, the word 'real' is relative and this is not the first time it's being hinted at. Yea?

The attached is a popular image on the internet. Notice how the human mind makes up parts of the components to create meaning. Will another mammal or another biokind see a human face? I don't think so.

LordReed:
No, it is not saying whole and independent. It is saying that what you are perceiving is a present objective part of reality.

Exactly. I even boldened the keyword for you.

LordReed:
I already said objective perception by humans is narrow. That you are not seeing the entire spectrum doesn't mean the perception is not objective.

Oh okay. I think you have come home then.

Since you are not seeing the entire spectrum, 'reality' or 'objective' then is us saying "look, let's just agree this is objective ('whole' and 'independent' 'fact'), even though this is not so.

Cc triplechoice

triplechoice:
Who are the "we" that has collectively agreed and how did the "we" all arrived at this agreement ?

All of use actually at the subconscious level where all of us are connected to. It's really an 'interface' which had been earlier exploded and known by mystics and today atheist physicists are exploring.

For a fact, this is actually how reality is "manifested", we actually "produce" it in real-time. I tried to share a very advanced work by some physicists on this with Lord.reed which takes the Double Slit experiment light years ahead of it's time He ran away instead.

You must have learnt that
The 'Double Slit Experiment' (the latest versions) found that everything exists as a wave of possibility. How when an observer comes into the picture, what you think was takes on another dimension.

This led to the question: what then is 'real', like the reality behind what we thought is reality?

This is where my hypothesis (though unoriginal) that we merely are agreeing to agree on ' real'and 'not real'.

triplechoice:
Who is the current president of Nigeria ?

The constituent of Tinubu we collectively agreed is Tinubu.

triplechoice:
But non religious people can also experience visions ,"OBEs" and trance .

For instance , die hard Peter obi and Tinubu supporters are currently going through a trance of loyalty for their preferred candidate, and that's why they struggle to see things objectively .

Now ,to answer the op, one's reaction( "collective agreement" ) to a thing that exist is not the same as the thing itself . In other words, your reaction is a creation of your mind and not the thing itself .

Does Peter obi and Tinubu exist ,yes they do .
Are their fanatical supporters capable of an objective perception of them ?

You should know the answer already .

You came close to where I am coming from. The issue is, the Tinubu you knew a second ago is not the same Tinubu you (think) you knew the next second.

This is so even if we work with the common reality that the very particles that makes our physical body's are constantly in a state of flux, which gave rise to the saying that "nothing remains the same".

If so, we are only agreeing to agree that this flux (dynamism), which appears as a static or Constants to our mortal sensoria is static or 'real', and that we are seeing the same thing even though we are not (since all is changing and moving).

A dog (due to their senses) isn't seeing the objective Tinubu, whatever the dog sees is actually part of Tinubu humans are not seeing, so Tinubu isn't actually Objective in the sense of the word.

LordReed:
1. Yes humans have objective experiences even though those experiences are narrow compared to what is available.

We're saying whatever humans are seeing is actually not what they thought (or assumed) it was even if they agree that what they are seeing is what they agreed they are seeing.

This is true in the light of current information on the physics of what to a human is 'reality', and even what is not real to him.

2. Subjective DOES NOT mean not real. It means peculiar to the individual and thus cannot be experienced simultaneously by others.

We can't talk about this one yet, we must parse through the physics of reality and what it might be, and then decided if indeed objectivity is possible as far as the human sensoria is concerned.

Kobojunkie:
You are still not making any sense. What now has physics to do with this?

Lolz what do you think we've been talking about

Kobojunkie:
I am afraid I do not follow at all.

That's it. You need to be grounded in such physics to be able to tango.

Kobojunkie:
And if we are to indeed start from there then your hypothesis... ...falls apart.

Good start. It's time to now marry that with the statement "No two people are alike"...

Let me know what you got.

Kobojunkie:
What criteria must be met for something to qualify as "objective" or "subjective"?

The basic definitions of those terms are your starting points

Kobojunkie:
I don't by your argument at all as it reeks of a lack of understanding of objective criteria.

Explain please

Kobojunkie:
Why try to force others to believe an experience which they have no way of verifying except if able to replicate it in themselves? Maybe we should start there.

Let's stick to the fundamental topic please. What do you know or think about it?

Maynman:
It's exactly what you are doing, Jargons from Eckankar.
You can't get "enlightenment" from outside, no one can give you that's why you will keep finding and you will never get it.

Lol

Maynman:
Keep deluding yourself with all these jargons.

Incidentally "jargon" isn't necessarily a negative word...you need this enlightenment.

[quote author=Maynman post=126512796][/quote]Sorry, we'll look for you when we need quotes from the resources and works of people like you online.

Given the above, 'reality' or 'objectivity' hence is simply 'co-agreed definitions+acceptances to things that are not really so as it where.

Cheers!

SAO basically means we simply agree that yes, the red painting we're both looking at is red even though we both can't and are not seeing exactly the same (objective) red paint, so let's just agree that it's red and let life go on.

My hypothesis:

Nothing perceived with the physical sense is objective. Nothing Material is. You only have 'Subjective Agreements on Objectivity' (SAO).

This question is coming from the heels of those who downplay religious experiences like Visions, OBEs, Trances as "it's just your subjective experience", "it's not Objective" so "it ain't real".

Thread...

lomprico:
Mehn! I've finally seen someone that reasons like me.
I do tell people that there are different Gods and each God have its own people he created specially in his image, that's why we have different races. And like yh said they beef eachother. That why the Jewish God says he is a jealous God! If there is only one God why or what will he be jealous of na?

Some people think I'm crazy for believing such but the evidence is clear to see.

You're not crazy at all. It's basic logic which evades attention when people refuse to reason at all cost.

A shocker is if one goes through the Bible with this in mind, they will see this reality written there:

1:"God" said "let us make man in our image"- they love to twist this as God having a Convo with holy spirit and his son

2: Next in the Bible is "God had sons who married daughters of men" which points to a fact that indeed, they were 'many' and incidence number one was in reference to someone addressing their kind.

The thing is, indeed at one time of the history of earth, some beings who came to earth and modified man to look like them were addressed as "Lord God" , "God", "My Lord" and "Angels".

From the look of things, they are not the almighty and all-loving God, this fact is evident for all to see.

Their channels had indeed been the Elijahs, Mohammed, and Abrahams, that they have favorite tribes and favorite people speaks about the imperfection of their Love.

Their space crafts had been recorded as "Chariots of fire", "Flying Horse" and whatnots.

These "Gods" had a beef among themselves and it spills over the Israel/Palestine event...

And what's it for?

LordReed:
Oga I didn't call you garbage or are you and the Book of Mormon now the same? LoLz.

Was it the Book of Mormon that showed you all these things?

It's obvious you think you can fool the person behind this handle...

Have good day please.

LordReed:
So if someone says to you, "you are being conned" you'll take it that the person is being derogatory towards you? LMAO!

" garbage" was the word. Being conned is secondary.

You didn't get the gist of the thread, you just jumped with that intro. It was to troll ultimately, and it did gingered a few troll-heads and of course as the lead, you where bandied with them all together.

It's okay now. The earlier image must have enlightened and also gave you a heads up to understand properly before commenting on threads...especially derogatorily.


Secondly, you were engaged having expressed to us all your ignorance on what we have been dealing with for the past 14yrs or so the feat of modern physicists in finally wrapping their heads and 'biomind' around the very advanced physics of 'idomateriality' (physics of thought or consciousness as basis for materiality)--a phenomenon mastered for eons by the very mystics you bashers despise.

This they did as far back as the 90s merging science with spirituality (and even religion).

Feats like:

- Light Encoding of the Matrixes of Objects (Creating anything or event on demand)

- Remote Viewing ( Astral projection)

- Extension Neurosensing (an advanced Astral Projection) via technology assistance or independently.

- Finally coming to terms with what can appropriately be termed "God".

LordReed:
Sure buddy, if that's what makes you sleep well. LMAO!



LoLz. Show where I derogated anything you said. You never even countered my submissions to show where any of them was erroneous, only to be bandying insults. Bwahahahahaha!

Hold my beer! I don't even want to parse the below statement on what it entails, connote and denotes.

Simply contrast the green vs the red. It's in HD

Mynd44:
I have a theory.

It sounds ridiculous but are we sure the tiktok handler isn't a Real Madrid fan who wants Osimhen angry enough to want to leave Napoli and go to Madrid?

Crazy theory sha

Me thinks so. It could be sponsored also

Maynman:
The play is almost over 😂


Tell me more about your slave masters. Your mind can only deceive itself.
https://www.nairaland.com/7644167/meet-eck-masters


Can you see madame, all what your religion and you know about OBE, astral projection and those other nonsense can be traced to her.

I am your nemesis, you'll learn.

To be fair to you, I am really learning.

You may be offended at the things I learn and this will definitely work you up more to visit Wikipedia lol

Like how intelligent can one be beyond Maynman the professor of Locomotive physics 😂

Maynman:
Weak, I know you trying but try harder.

Tell me more about your slave masters. Your mind can only deceive itself.
https://www.nairaland.com/7644167/meet-eck-masters


Can you see madame, all what your religion and you know about OBE, astral projection and those other nonsense can be traced to her.

I am your nemesis, you'll learn.

Enlighten me, it's madam Ngozi I am seeing from here

Maynman:
I am your nemesis, you'll learn.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

It's the "you will learn" for me.

Wow! Professor emeritus the quoting quoter!

So like this now, you seriously think I am following all this while? 😅😅😅

I am sure you've heard of the word 'sarcasm' 😁😁😁

Maynman:
They are capitalist, they need slaves like you.
Look around why is most NEW religion coming from America
This moro.n abi Mormon, where is it from?

From locomotive. Am I right ?

Maynman:
I am just starting with you slave, stay with me.
A slave can't think of the doctrines he is following.

Hewwww, I am in deep trouble😁

I didn't know of all this one oh

Prof prof, please keep it coming. You're very entertaining

Infact I will send this to Ecanker so that they will close the practice