Coincidences

[Shroomz~>]

Gary, don't be daft. Of course we're not enemies... at least I hope not.

I'm going out for a meal in 5 mins, so can't continue right now.

[garyb]

good, i thought so!
enjoy your meal!

[garyb]

gay is a perfect example.
it still means exhuberent and joyfull. the German word it comes from means hurried, exited. the modern use for "homosexual is a colloquial adaptation, a pun meaning that the homosexuals are always happy, an untruthful name if there ever was one. just because the word is misused, even if it's misused by everyone, doesn't change the actual meaning, Mr. Dumpty.

[astroman]

Merovingian sounds really good to me, my zodiac is Capricorn, ruled by planet Saturn ...

cheers, Tom

[Cochise]

I'm a Capricorn too.
Tom, wet smooth surfaces are a very bad thing being on tires (even some kind of rubber soles are slippery in those conditions), moreover bicycles have tiny tires...
In my experience, however, sometimes fear is the thing making me do the exact wrong move I've foreseen...

[astroman]

yes, if you have to act precise, fear is a very bad thing, and panic is even worth - but respect is almost essential.
btw that morning my wife told me about an ugly dream - me covered with lots of blood...
now don't call this a f*cking self-fulfilling-dunno-what
of course it did hurt and cost me the repair of a Levis, but it was way from any severe injury - people roll 100 miles or more in bicycle races with larger wounds.

cheers, Tom

[Cochise]

I had a quite similar incident: the front wheel went into the tram track, the bicycle suddenly stopped and 'unhorsed' me.
I was lucky since I didn't hit the ground and very lucky since there were no cars at that moment..

It was some years ago (3?) I don't remember if I foresaw the thing before it was happening
...so this is just idea association.

[garyb]

sure, we've all had these experiences, i'll wager.

astro, you're none of those things, but i'll go along with you for the sake of the movie. is there a problem with this(mentioning the ancient spelling of Saturn, i mean why did they name the cars "Saturn" and "Mazda"? )? it's not about the Christian character necessarily, it's just part of the Mysteries... it's just the story they tell..


stardust, here is a perfect example of not arguing the point, but reducing all conversation to absurdity:

No dictionary is old enough to have a real etymology.

as i told you, English was invented in Elizabeth's court. that's not so long ago, by the common references. the etymology available is sufficient for these purposes. the reality that you live in is defined by English, just by the fact that you speak it. it was, naturally and specifically designed for commerce.

if the definitions can't be agreed upon, then there is no communication. is this the reason that the new EU palace is designed to mimic the Tower of Babel?

hmmmmm...

[kensuguro]

gary->
I agree with you in that word definitions, especially for roots and latin derived ones have defined "strings" that are associated with specific words.. The whole discussion about meaning is a different story though.

It goes all the way back to Ferdinand Saussure's Significant and Signified. The word itself (significant), and what it points to, (signified) are two separate things, and will always remain that way. The association can be made to be the same, within a culture, shared dictionary , community , through the use of the common "string" definition, but after it registers in the head, there is no guarantee that the replicated meaning (from whatever available parts) will be the same between the speaker, and the listener. But of course, this is down the details.. As you say, by large, there are definitions agreed upon, that are quite consistent throughout a the US, UK, entire engilsh speaking area, etc... (though I presume each of those zones have a different set) Though I must say, they are still inconsistent between listeners. Hence great misunderstandings, people responding differently to the same conent, etc. All very meaningful in deriving a complex, multi-spectral diversity of comprehension and secondary content production. (that causes the same reaction again, that goes on, and on, and on...)

Again, it's the similarities in the perceived meaning that keeps a thought on a broad track, but the differences that make it interesting. It's never just one meaning. Meanings are always multi-leveled. The variation, I believe, only depends on your creativity and the ability to find connections between distant concepts. (again, returning to the concept of humor, and creative thinking)

You are right though... this is meaty stuff. High in nutrients! Gary's, braincell's, and everyone else's maneuvers are like a highly technical sparring of martial arts. Not aggressive, but very precise, well placed, and takes real skill and knowledge to connect into the next move. It's like watching great swordsmanship.

Going further, Saussure's concept carried over from linguistics, to cognitive science, as the "tool maker's paradigm" (aka "conduit metaphor"), thought up by a brilliant thinker called Michael Reddy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Reddy) Conceptually, they are along the same tracks, but Reddy's way of thinking allows the meaning creation process to be understood more in a computational way, giving great insite to AI programming. I have used this theory (as a general guideline) in creating my AI snake game.
(http://www.characterarcade.com/games/4f ... 716053eab8)
haha, I sold my soul to USA channel. lol. But the AI is very good. I don't think I've ever seen an AI snake executed this way. I can go into how the "meaning" concept plays a role in the AI but maybe in another post.. this post is already long..

[garyb]

and deliberately refusing the generally accepted definition because it doesn't agree with your point of veiw is equally wrong.

besides, the discussion is about the nature of deja vu and coincedence, not the nature of evolution(a non existent phenomenon that has a lot of weight behind it but is a mistaken interpretation of reality meant to establish the scientific basis for the aristocracy, saying that they are of a higher evolutionary order near to ascention, but that's another 99 cups of coffee).

your(any you) perception of reality is incomplete to say the least, at the best, and at the worst is flawed. conclusions based on that perception will naturally be false, though they may be useful for specific purposes. it is dishonest to say otherwise, like it or not.

[braincell]

Evolution is not a point of view. It's a fact.

We accept truth not false ideas or lies. Tolerance should not extend to such nonsense when it's pushed on society. Myths should not be perpetuated.

[alfonso]

your(any you) perception of reality is incomplete to say the least, at the best, and at the worst is flawed. conclusions based on that perception will naturally be false, though they may be useful for specific purposes. it is dishonest to say otherwise, like it or not.

Conclusions are not false because perception is limited, as far as they are correctly placed in a "system" in which the rules are set according to the limits within we consider them "valid". Any form of mental activity operates inside systems of values, logical, ethical, mathematical or whatever. These systems are closed and are made in a way that, with a trick, the conclusions are basically valid if they conserve the postulates. So there is no possible truth outside of a system, any attempt to produce conclusion or answers need a postulate of some sort, which is the foundation of a system.
Al truths are "false" because they can only be thought, believed, expressed within a system. This is the reason why "truth" is a slippery concept and it's much more correct to talk about "validity" which is a "truth within a certain system".
Perceptions are not false. We have two eyes and some insects have thousands. But as much different as they are, the worlds seen by us and them are both true. The world is not in 3d, our vision is in 3d.
Even if an object exists independently from any observer, there is no image of it outside of those formed in a brain (brains) after the elaboration of the reflected light data, following the specific structure of that particular cognitive system. So you can't say that you have a "false image" because a "true image" doesn't exist anywhere. Images are mental events, conditioned by the structure of the visual perception. all of them.

We only must take in account the fact that our mental activity works within systems and we can only manage relative truths, more or less valid propositions.
As I said before, but to be more precise, a valid truth must be false, a truth which is not false is a cheap trick...a false one is a noble trick, a honest one.

[ReD_MuZe]

how do you know you know?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

is information alive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme

can information be measured?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliometrics

some interesting reads..

[garyb]

your(any you) perception of reality is incomplete to say the least, at the best, and at the worst is flawed. conclusions based on that perception will naturally be false, though they may be useful for specific purposes. it is dishonest to say otherwise, like it or not.

Conclusions are not false because perception is limited, as far as they are correctly placed in a "system" in which the rules are set according to the limits within we consider them "valid". Any form of mental activity operates inside systems of values, logical, ethical, mathematical or whatever. These systems are closed and are made in a way that, with a trick, the conclusions are basically valid if they conserve the postulates. So there is no possible truth outside of a system, any attempt to produce conclusion or answers need a postulate of some sort, which is the foundation of a system.
Al truths are "false" because they can only be thought, believed, expressed within a system. This is the reason why "truth" is a slippery concept and it's much more correct to talk about "validity" which is a "truth within a certain system".
Perceptions are not false. We have two eyes and some insects have thousands. But as much different as they are, the worlds seen by us and them are both true. The world is not in 3d, our vision is in 3d.
Even if an object exists independently from any observer, there is no image of it outside of those formed in a brain (brains) after the elaboration of the reflected light data, following the specific structure of that particular cognitive system. So you can't say that you have a "false image" because a "true image" doesn't exist anywhere. Images are mental events, conditioned by the structure of the visual perception. all of them.

We only must take in account the fact that our mental activity works within systems and we can only manage relative truths, more or less valid propositions.
As I said before, but to be more precise, a valid truth must be false, a truth which is not false is a cheap trick...a false one is a noble trick, a honest one.

i don't believe in "nobility".
a lie, even if told by noblemen is still a complete lie.
as i said, conclusions can be useful even if false.

there is a higher level of reality that is not dependant on human perception. that's were truth exists. the rest is bullsh*t, that includes "theories"(educated guesses) that we like. for example, to over simplify, when you fall off a high cliff and break your legs, your perception of the injury has nothing to do with how broken they are...

and we still can't talk about the nature of coincidences or deja vu, because we still can't agree on the terms used. as i said before, is this type of philosophy(the subjective nature of truth which seems to be the popular thought pattern in Europe) the reason that the new EU headquarters is designed to mimic the Tower of Babel?

[alfonso]

i don't believe in "nobility".
a lie, even if told by noblemen is still a complete lie.
as i said, conclusions can be useful even if false.

there is a higher level of reality that is not dependant on human perception. that's were truth exists. the rest is bullsh*t, that includes "theories"(educated guesses) that we like. for example, to over simplify, when you fall off a high cliff and break your legs, your perception of the injury has nothing to do with how broken they are...

The difference I made of cheap and noble tricks was meaning that a noble trick is such because its relativity or, falsity, is not hidden, it is explicit and it serves its purpose to get useful knowledge. Therefore it's not a lie.

My opinion, instead, is that your statement about an higher level of reality is a lie, because I don't think that anyone can have access at a different level than his own.
The claim of a truth that is not false, i.e. not within a limited system, is not acceptable for me. As a mental product, your supernatural statement has the same flaws you claim for human perceptions and also remains a lie because it refuses falsification (validation). Coming from a limited system (human mind), it refuses its own nature.

[ReD_MuZe]

isnt it easier to find a common set of definitions for separate realities?

a spoon is still a spoon in israel, japan and everywhere.

most of the "controversial" terms here, as i see it, seem to be misinturpeted becouse of a lack of a comon format.

Honestly when i start hearing people talking about frequencies and vibrations of stuff that dont exist from people that dont know what a frequency really means, my bloodpreasure shoots up. as i think to myself "this guy is just talking bs using words he doesnt even understand" but you know what? if i try to listen to the meaning, i can often understand it even if it uses totaly irrelevant words. and here is an example of a sentence like that:
"Man i think my ora's frequency is shifting to a new dimension of positive cosmic energy!"

while this sentence is a load of gibberish, it makes emotional sense (emotions are an inseparable part of words) and it indeed has meaning

lets take "dimensions" for example again:
here is a wiki meaning of dimensions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension - note that even science doesn't have one type of dimension definition.
here is an extending of the meaning of dimensions and a great imagination experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
here is a madmans babble about dimensions (i could only stand this for about 10 seconds, but its rather amusing)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ov4bjOvnzM

what im saying is, it would be easier to listen, and deduct the subtext of the words, and debate that. arguing word meanings is just a way to argue without touching the actual subject...

[garyb]

alfonso, you are obviously free to believe as you choose.

you prefer your personal explanation and that's fine. since you have already decided what the parameters of discussion are, i don't expect you to actually consider anything i may say, but i will still say this:
math is math.
an equals sign always means the same thing, perception is not required(though because of perception, one can argue conclusions relating to the equals sign. still, "the same as" is pretty specific). the same can be said for technical language. if you will not allow the accepted meanings for technical terms, then there is no possible discussion.

reality is NOT dependant on perception, though to the perceiver, it may seem so. my stepson was sure that if he truly BELIEVED to the point of PERCIEVING that his car could run without oil, that it would run forever. of course, he was suffering the early stages of schizophrenia and the car blew up.

noble anything speaks of the "noble" hierarchy. there's the biggest lie of all. there's nothing noble about nobility. this speaks to conditioning, just like the blind love of Darwin, who is a real criminal and liar(those aren't his theories, he used other's work and his father's ideas and it was Huxley who paid and promoted him as a rock star in his day).

there is a "real" reality, but we live in the matrix, the false one. reread my description of Satanism/Lucefarianism(it really makes me giggle to print this stuff) and tell me that your thought process isn't described by that...

anyway, i don't want to be too rude(just an elbow to the ribs in fun). we're getting off topic again...

Red, i agree with that last post. there IS a simple definition of dimension, people always want to add imagination to it. that's where the psychobabble comes in. dimension is like "spoon". and yes, there is a proper mathmatical definition, which is what i used to reason my argument.

still, it's good to exercise one's powers of reason once in a while.

[ReD_MuZe]

and some 2 cents about an ultimate truth.

Truth, is something that the universe just doesn't support - or so it seams according to quantum mechanics. there is something close to truth in our physical size, but as you go into the more fundamental building blocks of the universe, it appears that there is no basic truth, but rather all kinds of realities happening all and none at the same time.

Truth is something finite, as it has to conform to logic rules. human beings are not logic driven, or else you would see people freezing any time they would try to divide by zero, or anytime someone would tell them a paradox like "This sentence is a lie" which is a sentence that cannot be true nor false. we as human beings can observe logic from a larger perspective, and without trying to prove and disprove this sentence say it is a paradox.

These are all evidences that the world is not a binary place there is no right or wrong, just waves of probability.
a greyscale that has no full black and white.

edit: i just read garrys last post:

1) a "=" sign in math can actually mean two things, it can be a question (conditional) or an answer (result) (in some programing languages they solved it by differentiating "=" from "==" but thats because computers are logic processors )
2) reality is dependent on the observer, thats what quantum mechanics is all about, and greater minds than us (like einstein) have tried to disprove it with no success.
3) you and alfonso are talking about two different kinds of noble. since alfonso is the first to use the word i suggest try to listen to the subtext rather than argue about this word that can mean different things in different contexts.

dimension is not a spoon. look at wiki. this entry alone has dozens of totally different definitions for different types of dimensions. There is still debate if time is an actual dimension or not, and if it is it brings the question of what other physical types of dimensions might there be besides time and space, how can we measure them, and does anything we do measure realy exist as it is measured. look at the M theory that says there are 11 dimensions one of them is time. cern experiments going on now should give us a better confirmation or disproval of these theories. my bet is we aint seen nothing yet!

Dimensions can be a spoon in this conversation tho. providing there is an active process of debating the actual subtext and not the words.

and just to tie it up with the topic, imo coincidences are just our interpretation of a relatively strange probability. i get those all the times, but imo its a sign created by the reader.

[garyb]

once again Red, i'm with you, for the most part.

i gave a basic definition of "dimension", in fact the first from an excellent dictionary. i then qualified it to geometry. wiki is useless noise in this situation, since anyone can express an opinion there and, as you already pointed out, there is ignorance afoot.

quantum physics is an excellent example of a near truth that is very useful. quantum physics is rather passe' in physics circles(not pop physics or work to acheive a specific end, though). quantum physics is merely one aspect if the greater truth and one that only applies to certain sets of parameters.

the universe certainly supports Truth with a captial T. as you said, a spoon is always a spoon. Truth does not need to be logical, not at all. in fact, it is often not logical, as a human would recognize. however since a spoon is always a spoon, you can be sure, the universe is always the universe. (here's something that the occultists will love)as above, so below. if the lower orders follow logic, so do the higher orders, even if such logic is incomprehensible. the word "order" demands it. i'm fine with the paradoxes.

yep, coincidences certainly are(co-incidents).

[braincell]

Many questions don't have a simple answer but that doesn't mean that all questions are this way. People evolved from other animals. That is a very simple fact. There is no way you can say it's more complicated than that. It's a "yes" not a "no" or a "maybe". Other issues are more complicated. This is not one of them. It has nothing to do with quantum physics or parallel universes.