Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Granth]

Expressions of horror seem to be the prevailing emotional reaction to Black Holes. Although if Black Holes did not exist, gallaxies would not exist and, of course, nor would we (well, as the form of consciousness we appear to be).

Black Holes appear to contain nothing while gallaxies spiral around them as somethings.

This whole nothing - something interplay is the action of Duality. And I contend that this whole interplay display is a fundamental illusion.

Where this illusion becomes a Delusion, however, is when we fear this marvelous cosmic display rather than treat it's awe with the respect I feel it deserves (because, in my opinion, fear is not really respect. This maybe why I am not "God fearing").

The Black Hole becomes feared when it symbolizes death, and it's surrounding spiralling gallaxy tends to represent life that is under threat of this "death". But the Gallaxy would not exist without it's black partner, so the whole interplay must ALL be Life.

There cannot, therefore, be such a thing called "life", if it is only seen as life when contrasted with death, and there cannot be such a non-thing called "death", if it is only seen as death when contrasted with life.

Both "life" and "death" (nothing and something, black holes and gallaxies), ARE Life Itself.

Gallaxies are merely representations of life as action, while the empty void of a black hole is also representative of life, but just as a non-action.

It is one thing to be deluded by illusions, but it seems yet an extra step backwards to live in fear of this Duality, thereby being delusional to the degree that we suffer from our illusions.

(is this the right forum for this? I wasn't sure where it should go, if anywhere)

[Grecorivera5150]

I view black holes much the same way I view the idea of god or the soul in conjuntion with myself, with indifference. In conjunction with considering black holes and gods with how other people percieve them is that I view them as distractions some times pleasent and other times not so much.

[Granth]

I view black holes much the same way I view the idea of god or the soul in conjuntion with myself, with indifference. In conjunction with considering black holes and gods with how other people percieve them is that I view them as distractions some times pleasent and other times not so much.

That sounds like a good idea. Seeing oneself with indifference has a sense of freedom inherent somewhere within that statement. Distractions as either pleasant or not so pleasant also has that free notion that indifference provides.

[UniversalAlien]

Being a sci-fi fan and a studier of the oriental philosophy of Taoism I find black holes intriguing, fascinating and possibly a gateway to a new future. How does light, time, and matter change or react when approaching and then entering into a black hole? Are black holes truly the gateway to mythical worm-holes that will allow travel across vast distance of space? And of course your espousal of the dualism seen here sounds very Tao {Yin/Yang}.

When you say: "Both "life" and "death" (nothing and something, black holes and gallaxies), ARE Life Itself", I agree but disagree on this being illusion. In Eastern philosophies such as Buddhism all of existence is looked upon by some as being illusion - And in Taoism the dualism becomes more understandable and definable. My concept is that 'reality' and 'illusion' are also a dualism - neither has an absolute existence by itself.

And when we travel to the other side of the galaxy you will see what I mean. But this may take a few years so I'll keep maintaining my sci-fi illusions and believe it is not a delusion. It's a big universe and what is real and illusory may never have a clear definition.

[Granth]

Reality, within any discussion, is dualistic. But that is only because it is existing within a discussion. Discussions are dualistic by their very nature. And us having a discussion is part of the illusion. There is no you and me having a discussion. There is just the illusory phenomena called "discussion". To say that you and me are having a discussion, however, is the same argument for saying you have a soul. Or the same argument for saying "I think a thought". I don't ever think. There is, however, a thought with which I, as observer, experiences. But the "I" that apparently thinks, is an illusion. The "I" that thinks is just another layer of illusion upon the original layer of illusion we call " thought".

-- Updated August 26th, 2012, 10:47 pm to add the following --

There is a reason that I have progressed towards this thinking (but I do understand if you regard such thought as not necessarily progress. But this can be discussed, if you wish).

This reasoning is available for those that are interested.

[UniversalAlien]

Reality, within any discussion, is dualistic. But that is only because it is existing within a discussion. Discussions are dualistic by their very nature. And us having a discussion is part of the illusion. There is no you and me having a discussion. There is just the illusory phenomena called "discussion". To say that you and me are having a discussion, however, is the same argument for saying you have a soul. Or the same argument for saying "I think a thought". I don't ever think. There is, however, a thought with which I, as observer, experiences. But the "I" that apparently thinks, is an illusion. The "I" that thinks is just another layer of illusion upon the original layer of illusion we call " thought".

-- Updated August 26th, 2012, 10:47 pm to add the following --

There is a reason that I have progressed towards this thinking (but I do understand if you regard such thought as not necessarily progress. But this can be discussed, if you wish).

This reasoning is available for those that are interested.

As usual Granth you are always interesting. Now for the sake of argument and not because I disagree with what you are saying as my thinking is often similar, let me propose that it is not illusion but it is based upon the definable physical existent state. We know most electronic processes are based upon positive and negative electricity, a real dualistic state like the hypothetical yin/yang philosophy. So I propose that it is the nature of the function of the brain to think dualistically because the brain is operated by a positive/negative electronic matrix. So I might surmise that the process of reality and how we comprehend it is being controlled by a definable electronic matrix and the dualism is therefor not illusory but a limiting and definable fact of our existence. Possibly in another universe where the natural forces are not based upon a physical dualism but are say controlled a three-way electronic matrix say it is called positive-negative-unknown factor X the thinking of beings would be different and not dualistic and therefor the real processes of such a universe would also be different as would the thinking process.

Again for the sake of argument I could argue that it is not the 'I' that is an illusion but the so called process of reality that is the illusion. What is the name for that philosophical concept stating only I can be known? Solipsism, but I do not necessarily agree with that either. And of course if one wants to argue that reality is illusory then why negate thinking and thoughts to illusion when thinking and thought may be what is real and not the material world.

[Granth]

As usual Granth you are always interesting. Now for the sake of argument and not because I disagree with what you are saying as my thinking is often similar, let me propose that it is not illusion but it is based upon the definable physical existent state. We know most electronic processes are based upon positive and negative electricity, a real dualistic state like the hypothetical yin/yang philosophy. So I propose that it is the nature of the function of the brain to think dualistically because the brain is operated by a positive/negative electronic matrix. So I might surmise that the process of reality and how we comprehend it is being controlled by a definable electronic matrix and the dualism is therefor not illusory but a limiting and definable fact of our existence. Possibly in another universe where the natural forces are not based upon a physical dualism but are say controlled the a three-way electronic matrix say it is called positive-negative-unknown factor X the thinking of beings would be different and not dualistic and therefor the real processes of such a universe would also be different.

Again for the sake of argument I could argue that it is not the 'I' that is an illusion but the so called process of reality that is the illusion. What is the name for that philosophical concept stating only I can be known? Solipsism, but I do not necessarily agree with that either. And of course if one wants to argue that reality is illusory then why negate thinking and thoughts to illusion when thinking and thought may be what is real and not the material world.

So let us, therefore, play the discussion game. Play with illusion. This is what this particular process is. Play. This is where I agree with Shakespeare.

U. Alien. "let me propose that it is not illusion but it is based upon the definable physical existent state."

However, definable physical "existent" states are only apparent according to the senses. Sensory input is then defined ("definable") as events in a linear form by the left hemisphere of the human brain. Merely half of the brain. This same half defines sensory input as shapes with color, flavor, weight and volume etc, using the five scientifically recognized senses. This "input" is the "physical state". Given that this "physical state" is only itself a process of half the brain, what, therefore, could be the state that is interpreted by the Whole brain (both hemispheres)? The Mind? Half of the story is only half of the story. To accept that half of the story must be the Whole story is delusion. Half of the story can only be an illusory element. If we were always conscious of both the brain's hemispheres processes, it would be very obvious how much the physical state is an illusion. But I can't show you what this fully conscious state would "look" like (the limitation inherent in language even means I have to use the word "look" even though this type of "looking" has nothing to do with the senses. Even using words like "this type" still uses dualism. So we need to "see" dualism and language, and all sensory input, the "physical", as mere tools TOWARD understanding).

These illusions are not Understanding. On another thread, someone posted a quote, ""Philosophy is an appetite and not the food". These illusions require an appetite for Understanding these illusions.


U. Alien. " So I might surmise that the process of reality and how we comprehend it is being controlled by a definable electronic matrix and the dualism is therefor not illusory but a limiting and definable fact of our existence."

I argue that as long as the experience of Existence is, in your words, "limiting", then this limited version of Existence cannot itself BE Existence. Experience that is limited, by left-brain defining processes, has to be only a cinematic (or "electronic") version of Existence. When we watch a movie, for example, we are not experiencing the actual events which are being depicted in the movie. If we thought we were, we would be suffering from delusion (by regarding this "version" of events as Real and Present).

But interesting enough, we can still feel all the emotions while only watching the movie version.

And I think this emotional element is where and why we grasp illusions as Real.

We are so attached to our emotions that we most often fail to see that even our emotions are a product of half of the brain. So we do not like to accept emotion itself as illusion.

We tend to be overly influenced by emotion for decisions about the true nature of things.

U. Alien. "And of course if one wants to argue that reality is illusory then why negate thinking and thoughts to illusion when thinking and thought may be what is real and not the material world."

The "material world" is really a thought. Quantum Physics already shows us the illusory nature of the material.

[Kappalsd]

Interesting discussion. Something that always bothered me was the the thought of Black/worm Holes somehow finding it's way into Earth's Atmosphere in some shape, form or fashion. By that I mean, considering the size of these hypothetical holes and the immense power that they potentially hold, is it even REMOTELY possible for a mini black/worm hole to find it's way either within miles of or within the Earth's atmosphere? If not, what is preventing it from happening? What is preventing a worm hole from forming near the moon? Why is it that Scientists are able to locate wormholes light years away and NEVER within miles of earth? It's almost as if Earth's surrounding atmosphere doesn't have the adequate conditions to sustain a wormhole. Worm holes are created by exploding stars correct? What's preventing a star from exploding near Earth's atmosphere and creating a worm hole that can affect Earth's gravity among other things? Lorentzian traversable wormholes hypothetically allows traveling from one universe to another and hypothetically from one TIME to another. SO is it feasible that a worm hole can get so close to earth that it affects Earth's gravity, time, weather and even oxygen?

[UniversalAlien]

Interesting discussion. Something that always bothered me was the the thought of Black/worm Holes somehow finding it's way into Earth's Atmosphere in some shape, form or fashion. By that I mean, considering the size of these hypothetical holes and the immense power that they potentially hold, is it even REMOTELY possible for a mini black/worm hole to find it's way either within miles of or within the Earth's atmosphere? If not, what is preventing it from happening? What is preventing a worm hole from forming near the moon? Why is it that Scientists are able to locate wormholes light years away and NEVER within miles of earth? It's almost as if Earth's surrounding atmosphere doesn't have the adequate conditions to sustain a wormhole. Worm holes are created by exploding stars correct? What's preventing a star from exploding near Earth's atmosphere and creating a worm hole that can affect Earth's gravity among other things? Lorentzian traversable wormholes hypothetically allows traveling from one universe to another and hypothetically from one TIME to another. SO is it feasible that a worm hole can get so close to earth that it affects Earth's gravity, time, weather and even oxygen?

Sure it's possible a we will all be eaten one day by a giant black hole and/or sucked into oblivion by a worm hole BUT the positive side is we will one day understand these things and like 'lift' which gave us air flight on earth we will find a wormhole that will give us Star-Gates and a chance to travel into deep space and meet our Sci-Fi friends which for now we can only dream about - hope they aren't carnivores who find humans to be tasty. But we can not turn back progress is inevitable, the stars await us!

-- Updated August 29th, 2012, 5:08 am to add the following --

This also occurs to mind: Reality, however you define it or perceive it, can reflect off of fantasy and illusion. Also it might reflect off of delusion and to know the difference between illusion and delusion is significant. In a favorite Sci-Fi series of mine Stargate SG-1 wormholes are used as stargates to different parts of the universe. This is still fantasy and illusory but it is still a real possibility. On the other hand witches turning an enemy into a toad is probably a delusion caused by witches ingesting too much witches brew. A scientific fantasy/illusion can be mind stimulating and productive but turning a neighbor into a toad is a bad delusion especially since some of them are already toad like. {hyperbole}

[Vanillasky]

We are never sure of the vastness of this universe what if, we are the bacteria inside the cell of a huge fish rectum and black hole is one of the cells of elimination passage.

Let me put this way if universe is infinite,why we consider things huge and small in comparison to us.What if these physics theories hold only in this universe which may be a single cell of a huge huge body and we can never imagine or think what's outside. I think have misjudged and mislead by our own existence and by taking things relative to our own size and location

[Granth]

We are never sure of the vastness of this universe what if, we are the bacteria inside the cell of a huge fish rectum and black hole is one of the cells of elimination passage.

Let me put this way if universe is infinite,why we consider things huge and small in comparison to us.What if these physics theories hold only in this universe which may be a single cell of a huge huge body and we can never imagine or think what's outside. I think have misjudged and mislead by our own existence and by taking things relative to our own size and location

Well, this could be closer to the truth than most theories. Our bodies are made up of bacteria and competing bacteria. If they weren't, there would be no bodies. Isn't there supposed to be millions of the little buggers just on the surface of the eyeball? Our inter-exchanges with other's bodies and our environment (and environmental bodies) maybe only a happening so that bacteria can spread. This might be our only phenomenal role in this universe.

-- Updated August 29th, 2012, 6:02 am to add the following --

In fact, I state that it is our only real phenomenal role in this universe.