God and 4th Dimension

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

Re: Common notions

Postby jinydu » Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:01 pm

Gilles wrote:Common notions don't work in 4 dimensions, until mankind starts seeing in 4.
Accroding to me, that won't be very long anymore.
Anyway, a new form of rotation doesn't exclude evolution (wich is my notion of the 4th), does it? How else do you think our solar system came to exist?
Got to go now


Evolution is a process, while the fourth dimension is a geometrical space. I think that rules out evolution being the fourth dimension.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

They Will

Postby Gilles » Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:18 pm

Jinydu, that might me exactly where we misunderstood each other. It might be both ste space and the evolutionary rules.

Houserichichi, mankind can see in 4 dimensions, and they will, not even very far from now.
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby houserichichi » Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:23 pm

Houserichichi, mankind can see in 4 dimensions


No they can't, seriously. We can only see three mutually orthogonal directions at any given instant of time. Seeing requires space and we've only got three dimensions of that to move, look, and feel in. Anything else is a result of those three and time.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

1 slight little thing

Postby Gilles » Fri Feb 11, 2005 11:09 pm

Dunno if you've ever heard of the third eye, but someone who opened that one can see in four dimensions. It's a different kind of watching, but i swear it's 4-dimensional
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:09 am

Dunno if you've ever heard of the third eye, but someone who opened that one can see in four dimensions. It's a different kind of watching, but i swear it's 4-dimensional


do you mean that they are abe to see the 4th dimension because they have 3 eyes or is it because they would be able to focus upon the 4th dimension.
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Re: 1 slight little thing

Postby houserichichi » Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:33 am

Gilles wrote:Dunno if you've ever heard of the third eye, but someone who opened that one can see in four dimensions. It's a different kind of watching, but i swear it's 4-dimensional


Have you a reference to a reputable journal, preferrably scientific, that can account for such an eye? Is there any experimental evidence to back it up or is it all assumed true until proven?

Are you referring to the Eye of Horus (something about a sixth chakra??) I looked it up - it's ancient Egyptian mysticism, not reality.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby RQ » Sat Feb 12, 2005 6:01 am

houserichichi wrote:Our universe is NOT curved into the fourth dimension, it IS four dimensional. The curvature is intrinsic - it doesn't require a higher space to curve into. And yes, a lower dimensional space does exist with respect to a higher one. It's called a subspace.


Our universe isn't 4D (4 extended spatial dimensions, ignoring time) because that would mean that the internal angles of a cube would add up to more and less than 360 degrees at the same time. An analogy for 2D to 3D. If we have the surface of a sphere (2D) be in 3D as you say then a triangle that on the surface with respect to the outside has more than 180 degrees will have at the same time less than 180 degrees because of the other side of the sphere. This is because a curve in a higher dimension doesn't make the curve a higher dimensional space. Our universe is not 4D it is curved in 4D and we don't require 4D to exist because we can't observe 4D and neither can it observer us.

Subspace is the lower dimensions of a dimensional space and they are infinitely big with respect to their non infinite form. A cube is made of infinitely many 2D sheets but taking away one 2D sheet doesn't make a difference, nor does it taking away a million!
RQ
Tetronian
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

Postby houserichichi » Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:15 pm

No, you're right our universe is not 4 spatial dimensions (and time) - but the 4-dimensional manifold that spacetime "sweeps out" IS, in fact, 4d. The intrinsic curvature of spacetime does NOT require higher space, though if we had it things would work the same - but why assume there's more when we have no evidence to suggest it? Occam's razor - we live on a 4d manifold that is intrinsically curved and requires NO HIGHER space to curve into.

Subspace is not the "lower dimensions" of a space. A sphere is a subspace of three dimensional real Euclidean space - it's still 3d. And picking a particular three dimensional subspace of 4-d spacetime (for instance all of R^3) is a perfectly find option. 3-D space is a subspace of 4-D spacetime.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Postby RQ » Sat Feb 12, 2005 8:46 pm

I meant to say that the space-time curvature is curved in the 4th extended spatial dimension. This would prove that there is a 4th dimension in reality but not within this universe.

In mathematics I know that the different dimensions can intersect, but those are thought experiments that can't be performed especially not in our universe unless the different spaces have who knows what laws.
RQ
Tetronian
 
Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

Postby houserichichi » Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:26 pm

That's what i was trying to get at too - spacetime is not curved into a higher dimensional embedding space. The curvature is intrinsic, we don't require a fourth spatial dimension to curve in for the the math to work, so we just work as though there isn't one. Now down the road there may be experimental evidence to support the existence of a higher space, but until that day comes, the mathematics governing general relativity requires no fourth spatial dimension. M-theory, on the other hand, is a different story altogether :wink:

Try this link: http://www.udayton.edu/~mathdept/EPUMD/2004/Chikako.pdf that uses basic high school math to try to explain curvature.
houserichichi
Tetronian
 
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am
Location: Canada

Re: They Will

Postby jinydu » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:00 pm

Gilles wrote:Jinydu, that might me exactly where we misunderstood each other. It might be both ste space and the evolutionary rules.


Mathematicians have already defined what a 4-dimensional space is. Unless you can prove that the definition is inconsistent, there's really no disputing it.

You could try to redefine it by saying that the 4th dimension is evolutionary processes. But that would be highly discordant with the well-accepted notions of what constitutes 1, 2, and 3 dimensional space. But if we're willing to throw out usefulness and consistency with our previous notions, I may as well define the 4th dimension to be my closet.

Gilles wrote:Houserichichi, mankind can see in 4 dimensions, and they will, not even very far from now.


Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? Anything that can be backed up with hard evidence, instead of further unsupported claims?
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Birdman » Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:40 pm

Wow, this topic sure ran away...heh.
Birdman
Mononian
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:42 am

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:33 am

Also, we know we exist, right? We can think too. What dimensions would thinking or existing fall under? Thinking especially. (Sorry if this last question is off topic). Thinking can also be interpreted as consciousness...

one time got me started on the thought of dimensions...I'm glad I found this site, and hope I may inspire someone to help think with me.


birdman sorry this is a little l8 but....

yes we know we exist existin would fll under well the 3rd dimension or the 4th . but for us its the third. but thinking also the third for us because we are not abe to fathum what the forth dimension looks like.

and ur like me exsept im 13. I LOVE conceptualizing and thinking deep thoughts and reading a book called "a breif history of time" by stevin hwkings u should read it if u havent it talks alot about this stuff.
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Postby Gilles » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:43 am

do you mean that they are abe to see the 4th dimension because they have 3 eyes or is it because they would be able to focus upon the 4th dimension.


Yes, that last thing, rather.

Have you a reference to a reputable journal, preferrably scientific, that can account for such an eye? Is there any experimental evidence to back it up or is it all assumed true until proven?

Are you referring to the Eye of Horus (something about a sixth chakra??) I looked it up - it's ancient Egyptian mysticism, not reality.


It's not only Egyptian mysticism, it's also Buddhism, Hinduism, Esoterism, and a beleif of south America, which I don't know tha name of.

Saying that it's not reality, is a bit naive... That suggests that you know reality, and if you did, I was very curious about what you had to say.

In this ocean of chaos, I try to find my way communicating with the people of my time, forming my illusions the way I want to form them, and opening my Third Eye (or at least, having the illusion to have done that) with a better understanding of the 4th and 5th dimension and everyone that surrounds me, is how I explain what happened to me some months ago.

I explain big scientists like Einstein and Newton as people who had done the same in another point of view, wich resulted in a brighter look into the future. The future had the replies to their questions, together with their past.

Again, you don't have to beleive me, I might aswell be just some bug in the mainframe trying to convince you of something ridiculous, but so might you...

That's what I love about life
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Woops

Postby Gilles » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:44 am

Woops, i quoted myself even before I wrote it...

How ironic

moonlord: fixed your self-quote ;)
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Mon Feb 14, 2005 1:14 pm

In this ocean of chaos, I try to find my way communicating with the people of my time, forming my illusions the way I want to form them, and opening my Third Eye (or at least, having the illusion to have done that) with a better understanding of the 4th and 5th dimension and everyone that surrounds me, is how I explain what happened to me some months ago.



but if you are able to focuse upon the 4th dimension and create illusions wouldnt you be able to warp the 3rd dimension? and create almost anything?[/quote]
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Huh?

Postby Gilles » Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:46 pm

but if you are able to focuse upon the 4th dimension and create illusions wouldnt you be able to warp the 3rd dimension? and create almost anything?


What's warp? If it's teleport, no, I'm still bound to a physical body. Can travel with my mind though, but people around me would still see me near them if you get what I mean.

Create almost anything depends on how you look at it. I can't suddenly see a dragon, neither can I make myself fly. I can change my own luck though, but everything I do is bound to 4 dimensional rules, which aren't very different from the 3-d's or vice versa, as every dimension influences all the others and the results of all are the natural laws we see.
It's just an altered state of consciensness.

What I meant with forming my illusions, is rather forming the way i see the world. That's not very different for me then for any onther person, only I'm aware of it, which gives me more influence on it, and makes it easy for me to stay positive, and help people where needed, without any expectations, cos helping others is helping myself.

But enough of that, i'm gonna eat
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:04 pm

well when i said warp i ment distort sorry.

What's warp? If it's teleport, no, I'm still bound to a physical body. Can travel with my mind though, but people around me would still see me near them if you get what I mean.


so you would be able to levatate around without walking. but you cant fly?so evry thing you see and do would be done in the 4th dimension?
what do you mean that you can form the way you see the world and be awar of it?
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Re: Huh?

Postby jinydu » Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:36 am

Gilles wrote:What's warp? If it's teleport, no, I'm still bound to a physical body. Can travel with my mind though, but people around me would still see me near them if you get what I mean.


I think that's proof that you haven't travelled anywhere.

Gilles wrote:Create almost anything depends on how you look at it. I can't suddenly see a dragon, neither can I make myself fly. I can change my own luck though, but everything I do is bound to 4 dimensional rules, which aren't very different from the 3-d's or vice versa, as every dimension influences all the others and the results of all are the natural laws we see.
It's just an altered state of consciensness.


Once again, you have misunderstood the nature of what is meant by a fourth dimension. The fourth dimension is not whatever you want it to be, and science is not a series of vague, unsupported and untestable speculations. If you claim to know what these 4 dimensional rules are, why don't you state them explicitly and describe an experiment that will allow others to test whether these "rules" are correct?

Gilles wrote:What I meant with forming my illusions, is rather forming the way i see the world. That's not very different for me then for any onther person, only I'm aware of it, which gives me more influence on it, and makes it easy for me to stay positive, and help people where needed, without any expectations, cos helping others is helping myself.

But enough of that, i'm gonna eat


Anything that is detectable by you, and you only, is beyond the scope of science. Science is interested in replicable experiments, experiments that can be repeated by anyone.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Gilles » Fri Feb 18, 2005 6:06 pm

3l3ctr0, forming illusions, is seeing what you want to see, knowing that what you want to happen actualy happens.
If you expect the world to like you, you will start liking the world. It's all a matter of energy. If you send your energy to others, they will send enery to you, and the both of you will strengthen. Molecules do the same thing. They grow by attaching themselves to other molecules, and leaving them again, once enough interaction has been taken place. This is a law that counts for the whole universe: together you are stronger then alone. You will learn by being together, not by being alone.
With the word energy, i mean everything you can send. Symathy, money, love, subtle forms of energy, it's all the same thing, but seen from a different point of vieuw, wich depends on the energy of the one who's looking. If you have a lot of money, you'll find that giving it to others gives you strength. If you have a lot of spiritual power, you'll find that same thing.
Finding yourself is finding what you have to give, and what gives you strength. Or what forms your illusion.

I'm off to eat again...
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby jinydu » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:11 am

Gilles wrote:3l3ctr0, forming illusions, is seeing what you want to see, knowing that what you want to happen actualy happens.


I want a billion dollars to appear right in front of me. Argh! It didn't happen! :lol:

Gilles wrote:If you expect the world to like you, you will start liking the world. It's all a matter of energy.


*Cracks open his physics textbook* Energy is defined as the ability to do work. Work is the integral of Force * d(distance).

Gilles wrote:If you send your energy to others, they will send enery to you, and the both of you will strengthen.


Such a statement has no place in science. Would you mind defining "strengthen" in a precise and objective way?

Gilles wrote:Molecules do the same thing. They grow by attaching themselves to other molecules, and leaving them again, once enough interaction has been taken place. This is a law that counts for the whole universe: together you are stronger then alone. You will learn by being together, not by being alone.


If I had been one of the people responsible for molecular bonding theory, which I certainly am not, I would be furious to hear such a misrepresentation of my findings. Molecules do not grow because they "want to grow", and they do not break up because they have "had enough interaction". If you knew about thermodynamics and quantum mechanics, you would know that spontaneous reactions occur so as to minimize energy. An H2O molecule in its ground state has less energy than 2 Hydrogen atoms and an Oxygen atom in their ground states. Molecules that form spontaneously break up when they are given energy, energy that is used to break the molecular bonds. And atoms do not join with atoms so they can "learn"!

Gilles wrote:With the word energy, i mean everything you can send. Symathy, money, love, subtle forms of energy, it's all the same thing, but seen from a different point of vieuw, wich depends on the energy of the one who's looking.


And that definition of energy puts you squarely outside the domain of reason and logic. Do you honestly think that money and love are the same thing?! Then surely, the bank would be overflowing with love. I can also send molecules of air at someone. Would you mind showing me how that someone could convert those molecules of air into dollars?!

Gilles wrote:If you have a lot of money, you'll find that giving it to others gives you strength. If you have a lot of spiritual power, you'll find that same thing.


Then surely, Bill Gates can lift trains. Try defining "strength" before you make such unsubstantiated assertions.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby 3l3ctr0 » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:44 pm

i think he means internal strankth to make u "happy"
3l3ctr0
Dionian
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 2:52 am
Location: toronto ont.

Strength

Postby Gilles » Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:56 pm

Jinydu,

Everything you see, hear, feel, smeel and taste, is an interpretation of vibrations you catch.

I want a billion dollars to appear right in front of me. Argh! It didn't happen!


If you could, you wouldn't want it anymore, it wouldn't make sence to you, you'd have different things to learn.

And atoms do not join with atoms so they can "learn"!


Not according to the scientific theories of nowadays. We think we can't communicate with atoms, so they can't have a concience. Exchanging electrons and energy, is a form of communication between us and them, but as our concience has far overpassed theirs, we think they aren't aware of anything, but i don't see a reason to assume that. Our concience is the sum of some lower conciencenesses, but so is theirs.
I think they can learn, not in the same way as us of course, every creature (what molecules are aswell as protozoa or humans, if you don't agree, define me life please :wink: ) can, and has something to learn.
Now that we have to start defining, i'd better define you learn aswell, don't I? To learn is to become the thing you learn. Not materialy, but conciencely. Somewhere in the past, you've learned how to walk. Now, you don't even think about how you do that anymore, because you've become your way to walk. It's the same with writing, or science.
I see you as someone who follows rules, and thinks about them. That's what you are to me. You've become the rules you learned.

You learn by experiencing. If a molecule attaches himself to others, and leaves them afterwards, he's experienced how it was to be part of something bigger. We do that aswell, by joining a group, or having relationships, communicating with people or even walking through woods.

Of course, we won't see molecules change rapidly, because their way of learning looks slower to us then ours (this is seen from our point of view, but they aren't aware of time in the same way as us). We appear to have a lot more interaction, and to learn faster.

Strength, to me, is an accumulation of experiences, that leads to a higher concienceness. I say higher, becaus you would'nt understand equal, but equal is how I see it. Still, for you to understand what I say, I have to say higher, and that's a difference in our concience.

Now you could argue that science doesn't talk about concience, but science itself is formed by it. Science depends on concience. Concience forms a big chaos of vibrations to the structurised image we get from it. Molecules don't realy exist, they're just interpretations of vibrations we catch. As are cells, trees, animals, and ultimately, yes, we are our own interpretation of ourselves aswell. But we are no more then the structure we give to the world around us.
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Re: Strength

Postby jinydu » Sat Feb 19, 2005 5:59 pm

Gilles wrote:Not according to the scientific theories of nowadays. We think we can't communicate with atoms, so they can't have a concience. Exchanging electrons and energy, is a form of communication between us and them, but as our concience has far overpassed theirs, we think they aren't aware of anything, but i don't see a reason to assume that.


Here's a reason: According to quantum mechanics, every atom in the same state is identical. Take away an atom's electron, then allow it to capture a new electron. You will detect no difference between the start and the end state.

Gilles wrote:Our concience is the sum of some lower conciencenesses, but so is theirs.
I think they can learn, not in the same way as us of course, every creature (what molecules are aswell as protozoa or humans, if you don't agree, define me life please :wink: ) can, and has something to learn.
Now that we have to start defining, i'd better define you learn aswell, don't I? To learn is to become the thing you learn. Not materialy, but conciencely.


Ok, let me put it this way. Quantum theory says that the behavior of particles like atoms depends only on their current state, not on their past history. Considering that this theory has a strong experimental foundation, what reason is there for assuming that it is wrong on this count?

Gilles wrote:You learn by experiencing. If a molecule attaches himself to others, and leaves them afterwards, he's experienced how it was to be part of something bigger.


Molecules do not "experience". They have no eyes, no ears, no brain, no neural system, no nervous system. All they do is react to the current situation in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics.

Gilles wrote:Of course, we won't see molecules change rapidly, because their way of learning looks slower to us then ours (this is seen from our point of view, but they aren't aware of time in the same way as us). We appear to have a lot more interaction, and to learn faster.


Again, molecules have do not "experience" things, "learn" or have "consciousness". There is no experimental evidence to support your claims, nor is there any theoretical reason to accept them.

Gilles wrote:Strength, to me, is an accumulation of experiences, that leads to a higher concienceness. I say higher, becaus you would'nt understand equal, but equal is how I see it. Still, for you to understand what I say, I have to say higher, and that's a difference in our concience.

Now you could argue that science doesn't talk about concience, but science itself is formed by it. Science depends on concience. Concience forms a big chaos of vibrations to the structurised image we get from it. Molecules don't realy exist, they're just interpretations of vibrations we catch. As are cells, trees, animals, and ultimately, yes, we are our own interpretation of ourselves aswell. But we are no more then the structure we give to the world around us.


Molecules do exist, and so do cells, trees, animals and us. We are not mere interpretations. Our existence is both observable and objective.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Gilles » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:00 pm

Ok, let me put it this way. Quantum theory says that the behavior of particles like atoms depends only on their current state, not on their past history. Considering that this theory has a strong experimental foundation, what reason is there for assuming that it is wrong on this count?


Our reactions are based on our current state aswell, it's hisory that's defined that state...

Molecules do not "experience". They have no eyes, no ears, no brain, no neural system, no nervous system. All they do is react to the current situation in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics.


Did a molecule ever tell you so?

Again, molecules have do not "experience" things, "learn" or have "consciousness". There is no experimental evidence to support your claims, nor is there any theoretical reason to accept them.


If you search yourself deep enough, you'll find that the only thing that makes you experience are a bunch of signals. Saying the brain makes a concience, is nonsense to me.


Molecules do exist, and so do cells, trees, animals and us. We are not mere interpretations. Our existence is both observable and objective.


And even communicatable, but with who else then the illusion of yourself?
Science can't prove existence. It's dogma is that it started stating it exists, once you build a reality on that, you can't go back, but it's no proof.
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby jinydu » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:39 pm

Gilles wrote:Our reactions are based on our current state aswell, it's hisory that's defined that state...


But our history is irrevocable. Nothing can ever erase what has happened to me in the past. By contrast, you can never know how many atoms an electron has been bound to. If you put two electrons in the same state, they will appear exactly identical.

Gilles wrote:
Molecules do not "experience". They have no eyes, no ears, no brain, no neural system, no nervous system. All they do is react to the current situation in accordance with the laws of quantum mechanics.


Did a molecule ever tell you so?


A mountain of evidence told me so.

Gilles wrote:If you search yourself deep enough, you'll find that the only thing that makes you experience are a bunch of signals. Saying the brain makes a concience, is nonsense to me.


The brain does make consciousness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

Gilles wrote:And even communicatable, but with who else then the illusion of yourself?
Science can't prove existence. It's dogma is that it started stating it exists, once you build a reality on that, you can't go back, but it's no proof.


You could claim that the whole world is just an illusion, that nothing really exists. You could attack the very axioms that make rational study of the world possible. But you would never get anything done, as you would just waste your time sitting in a corner.

In any case, the assumption that the universe is not an illusion, that we and the things we observe are real, is far more plausible and infinitely more useful than the alternative.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

And why?

Postby Gilles » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:00 pm

And why?

Because people hold on to security, not because it is more real.

I think we won't get any further in our discussion.

As I stated in the beginning, our point of view is different.
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Re: And why?

Postby jinydu » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:38 pm

Gilles wrote:And why?

Because people hold on to security, not because it is more real.

I think we won't get any further in our discussion.

As I stated in the beginning, our point of view is different.


Well, can you name one practical application that came from assuming that the universe is an illusion?
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

Postby Gilles » Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:26 pm

Forming it the way you want to from it. Focussing on beautiful aspects, being "happy" all the time, is enough to me.

It overpasses comfort.
Gilles
Dionian
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Postby jinydu » Mon Feb 21, 2005 1:03 am

Well, I can assure you that the computer you're using to type your messages was not developed under the assumption that molecules can think.
jinydu
Tetronian
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Consciousness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron