So is this biocentrism basically saying that if I don't exist then nothing exists or have I got it wrong?

oioioi wrote:
This was kind of my point, and I suppose in part the point of the thread. If there are no 'sentient' beings present to witness such occurances, do they even actuallly occur?

Again, it depends very much on your definition of 'sentient'. For example, in a world full only of trees - as per previous example - it is conceivable that other trees, if they have such a thing as consciousness may perceive the falling of a nearby, felllow tree, as something quite traumatic and sorrowful. Or, they may just see it as a natural progression onto some kind of further 'existence'.

Who knows? Regardless, it wouldn't be any more improbable or ridiculous as some of the theories that we as a species currently hold as 'gospel'.

And who is to say that the mere fact of the trees' existence, isn't the very reason that 'they' are feeling or rather, sensing, whatever it is that 'they' are sensing at the that moment?

Entirely subjective, and until we know the ins and outs of EVERYTHING, which hopefully will never happen, absolute postulation.

Space Bandit wrote:
I suppose the term itself can be said to have different meanings to different people, just like any other term or definition. For me, it intrinsically indicates what you wrote above. If 'I' am not present to experience or witness such occurances, then to 'me', they never even happened. 'I' could conceivably imagine such occurances, but that imagination would then in turn have to be compounded or confirmed by the information that my senses were in turn relaying to my brain.

In a nutshell, I suppose this is how 'we' become who 'we' are.

Now then, this is a representation of the falling tree theory... But here there is someone around to observe it.
Imagine a dried pea placed in a glass jar with the lid in place, when the jar is shaken the pea is heard to rattle.
Now if enough soundproofing were applied to the jar, then when the jar was again shaken the pea would be not heard to rattle, however we can still perceive the sound through our memory and adjust the frequency of the 'remembered' sound to when the jar is shaken faster or slower, it's almost like a state of superposition.
It's also worth thinking about some of Einstein's experiments on relativity, a simple version of one of them is that if a radio is on, if you walk away from it quickly then the sound can be heard to reduce in volume as you move away, though the radio's volume is not adjusted..
But if you walk away from the radio again at the top speed of a snail then you'll be moving that relevantly slowly that your ears/mind will not be able to notice the reduction in volume of the radio, you won't even realise when you no longer hear the radio, unless you take notes, as the last chimes of the radio will still be running in your mind after you ears can detect it at all.

Space Bandit wrote:
Well kind of, it means that what exists is a shared agreement of perception.
Think about this, it kind of makes sense, everything that you perceive must pass through your mind, otherwise you won't know that you have detected it, it would be like being paralyzed.

Now it is difficult to explain, but not a difficult concept to understand.
No light enters the human brain, it's dark within a skull, when something is observed photons are collected by the eye and twiddled to the front of the brain, the photons are then turned into electrical messages and sent to the back of the brain. (photons are not reflective)
So then an image is conjured at the back of the dark brain, not only an image but an illuminated image, we actually think that this image is 'out there' in front of us, but it's not it's in your mind.
How does the light enter the mind, It's because it's not light it's imagination.
Now from the o/p info you can see that Robert Lanza has a stem cell biology background and is a leading scientist.
''Consider the weather ‘outside’: You see a blue sky, but the cells in your brain could be changed so the sky looks green or red. In fact, with a little genetic engineering we could probably make everything that is red vibrate or make a noise, or even make you want to have sex like with some birds. You think its bright out, but your brain circuits could be changed so it looks dark out. You think it feels hot and humid, but to a tropical frog it would feel cold and dry. This logic applies to virtually everything. Bottom line: What you see could not be present without your consciousness.''
talesfromthelou.wordpress.com/tag/robert-lanza/
According to biocentrism your mind is not in your body, your body is in your mind, there is no way of knowing that the messages that your eyes send to the brain is a true representation of what is 'out there' ( the same applies for all senses)
So when the first microorganism appeared where ever that is, they perceived a place where they were, and agreed a very simple perception, this is the beginning of the universe, as these microorganisms adapted into 'superior' life forms the Universal rules also adapted, but they are still 'chained' to the first perception but moved very slowly into evolution, (see radio analogy on previous post), so perhaps a tiny creature would have perceived the first bit of 'wet muck', so now we have the wet muck perception, so even now if we can perceive the universe through telescopes and radiofrequencies we still have wet muck as that perception, but instead of wallowing in it and laying eggs in it, we just step over it or use it to build huts etc. . .
So to sum up this rough explanation a tiny sea creature has that perception, a tiny slug has this perception, a tiny mouse has it's perception and so on, it's just that the creature with more evolved perceptions influence the creatures with less perception, for example a beetle won't perceive a person, but will perceive changes in light & vibration as the possible approach of danger.
Now all we need to do is to remove all the creatures and look at the consciousness alone, it can be seen to start at a narrow point within the tiny first microscopic organism and open out with evolution.. All the critters, the time the space and everything else is consciousness arranging confusion into order, and that time, space and matter are projections of the mind, and not an external observation.

Ab Origine wrote:
Trees do communicate with each other ...
''Acacia trees pass on an ‘alarm signal’ to other trees when antelope browse on their leaves, according to a zoologist from Pretoria University. Wouter Van Hoven says that acacias nibbled by antelope produce leaf tannin in quantities lethal to the browsers, and emit ethylene into the air which can travel up to 50 yards. The ethylene warns other trees of the impending danger, which then step up their own production of leaf tannin within just five to ten minutes''
spectregroup.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/acacia-self-defense/

We quote below from as Associated Press dispatch:

"Grants Pass, Ore. (AP) - Physicist Ed Wagner says he has found evidence that trees talk to each other in a language he calls W-waves.

"If you chop into a tree, you can see that adjacent trees put out an electrical pulse," said Wagner. "This indicates that they communicated directly."

"Explaining the phenomenon, Wagner pointed to a blip on a strip chart recording of the electrical pulse.

"It put out a tremendous cry of alarm," he said. "The adjacent trees put out smaller ones." .....

"People have known there was communication between trees for several years, but they've explained it by the chemicals trees produce," Wagner said.

"But I think the real communication is much quicker and more dramatic than that," he said. "These trees know within a few seconds what is happening. This is an automatic response."

"Wagner has measured the speed of W-waves at about 3 feet per second through the air.

"They travel much too slowly for electrical waves," he said. "They seem to be an altogether different entity. That's what makes them so intriguing. They don't seem to be electromagnetic waves at all."
www.science-frontiers.com/sf063/sf063b11.htm

Space Bandit wrote: Surely 'sound' and vibration are two separate things, firstly vibration is a movement, so when 'ears' feel the movement then the brain makes the transformation from vibration into sound. Secondly devices for listening such as those used by environmental authorities to monitor sound issues in an urban area focus on vibration, thus not sound, that's only the ingredient of what 'we' call sound.
In relation to human ears, it's quite a well known fact that animals in general have superior hearing to humans, I'm guessing that this is due to how their brains interpret these vibrations as important, whilst humans are distracted from these basic instincts by being involved in more complicated thoughts, such distractions would inhibit thinking.

03 Nov 2013 09:13

Don't you do lie-ins?

Record it when nobody is there. Did it make a sound?

What do we mean by "sound"?

Ambiguous definitions lead to circular arguments.

mikey mikey wrote:
But what is your definition of 'circular' and how was that formed?

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Sound is the vibration of air molecules or any other medium through which it can travel... such as water. Sound cannot travel through a vacuum... so no, sound is vibration caused by disturbances in any given medium. No medium - no sound.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
This is psychoacoustics. What we perceive as and interpret as sound is entirely different from the actual physics of what's happening. For example; because the auditory canal is roughly 3cm long and tube shaped, this causes frequencies around 3kHz to appear louder (than they would physically register on a measuring device) as they resonate in the cavity, It just so happens that these are the presence frequencies of speech. This has occurred not by some coincidence given the vast range of possible frequencies, but through evolution. It is unknown whether the vocal chords adapted to the auditory canal or vice-versa.
Same goes for light. We only see a small amount of the available bandwidth. We're getting into Icke territory now...!

Space Bandit wrote: I'm sorry to disagree but sound is only in brains, sound is not vibration, sound is what 'minds' do with vibration, a deaf person can still perceive vibration without sound.
It's just that vibration stimulates minds to conjure sound via ear, it's a bit like a bullet is not pain, however it can cause the nervous system to pass signals to the brain, and in return pain sensation is applied.
So vibration to ear is what bullet is to body, it triggers the brain to receive a notification to apply a sensation.

So, the blow-job isn't the pleasure, its just the brain reacting to am external stimulus?

That takes all the fun out of it. Actually, no it doesn't

Some birds of prey and other creatures see objects in infer red, other creatures perceive sound in different formats, so we need not look too far from what is presented as reality to see differences in perception.
How do we know which creatures perception of reality is the correct perception?
That's when biocentrism comes into play, as there is no real perception, it's all subjective, so all we need to do is to take the subjective perceptions of two creatures and back track them, this <<<<here is a thumb.
If creature 'one' perceived the thumb from this angle / ,and creature two perceives the thumb form this angle \

If you can imagine that the first creature is a dog so sees in black and white vision with good audible hearing /
Creature two could be a shark, possibly sees in infer red and uses a type of sonar for hearing \

So now we have two perceptions of the thumb / & \.

or ▲, imagine the thumb ......
..... at the point where the two ▲ perceptions meet.

If you now back track from the point where the perceptions meet at the thumb target they start to separate, grow apart, away from the actual point of focus.

If we continue to backtrack the two angles will not only disagree about how to detect the object, but that the object is actually the same thing as each other is perceiving.

It's only when their focus's are narrowed into a shared perception that they agree it's a thumb.
Surely this tells us that it's only the agreement of perception that creates the thumb, otherwise life would be unfathomable.
The greater the focus to detail that is shared, the more shared reality we have, thus when we discuss more abstract concepts that are difficult to focus on such as art, then nobody can really say for certain what it is.

If we take the concept of abstract art and view that as consciousness then is that a thumb shape in that artwork or is it just my eyes playing tricks with the material presented.

jhado wrote:
Yes and that's how masturbation is permissible as the whole thing can be played out in the brain, all you need is to be aware that such sensations exist.
You can simply make the whole scenario up in your brain and the erection is still had and your imagination only needs to comply with the rhythm of your hand to conjure the fantasy into some type of 'reality;.
If your eyes were closed and a old tramp was sucking away, you were tricked into thinking that it was the women of your dreams, all the tramp is then doing is providing sensation for your simulation.
Even a billy goat could do that bit for you, the rest is in your head.
Most peoples dreams about sex and fantasies are in place before any sexual act takes place.
In the case of oioioi that's yet to occur lol

So it's the thought of what's happening that is more apparent with sexual desires than what is actually happening (Your fantasies are being met)

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Grudge much?

mikey mikey wrote:
Is that a reference to biocentrism or a random 'Wayne's World' type of phrase?

I like cage rattling, some prefer shit slinging.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
...what you're pretending to not having just posted.