Flat Earth

[tarzan2]

this is the most noble thing a person can do.. to question anything and everything, and especially those truths we think to be established is a greater service to rational thought than trying to develop new ones.. once we start to take truths for granted we subject our free will to an enslaved intellect and in a way become enslaved ourselves.. it is for this reason even gravity is still only a theory in the strictest sense

i think the dudes name is something mills but im just parroting his ideas cause i like em

[the joint]

How as an individual can I know if the Earth is a sphere or a flat disc? What experiment can I do that doesn't involve trusting information from a 3rd party that would prove what the geometry really is?

[...]

Slightly off-topic, as it sort of involves you trusting a third party, but Vsauce did a video about whether the Earth is flat, late last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs (10m30s) - it's pretty good, and informative. Also, he included a large amount of links in the video description, where you can get additional information.

Consider that when you view things as they move away from you, perhaps they are really NOT moving away from you. Perhaps what is happening is that you and the object are actually exchanging some form of energy that causes you to actually become larger, and the object become smaller with relation to you.

When you throw a ball at the object that has moved away from you, all that you are really doing is transferring a certain kind of energy between you, the object, and the ball. As the ball moves away from you, it loses size even though we interpret it as gaining distance. With relation to the object, the ball gains size, even though to the object, the ball seems to have lost distance.

With a few twists to the concept of warp theory (yes, like Star Trek, but the real thing that Einstein and others formulated), things might be that there is virtually no distance between us and anything else. Wormholes that connect things that seem to be distant, might simply be energy transference "equations" that change the size relationships between various objects. Wormholes might be around us all the time, numbering in the millions, depending on the variety and numbers of "places" that we individually observe or are otherwise aware of.

We interpret distance. We interpret how we change distance between ourselves and other things. We calculate the amount of energy that it takes to "move things across such distances." But maybe it is all a trick of the mind, designed by God or nature to maintain order in the universe. Maybe with a little bit of the right kind of quantum math and mechanics, combined with a little change in the way that we think about things, we might be able to move between the earth, and planets that revolve around other stars, with just as much ease as we walk across the street.

Perhaps the ancients tapped into this "state of mind." Perhaps the piling up of the blocks of the Great Pyramid was accomplished through mental control of "short distance" wormholes. Perhaps the movie, Jumper, is not that far off after all.

If things are getting bigger/smaller instead of closer/farther, then explain why mass doesn't change.  Also, explain why, if Person B stands between Persons B and C, and then walks towards A, he wouldn't get both larger and smaller at the time time.

Also, when you move, do you see yourself get bigger or smaller?

Wow dude.

[tarzan2]

hmm but how do explain constant mass and distance without expressing evidence that originated only from your senses.. could you explain it only through precisely rational thought without using anything from subjective experience that would make sense to me were i an ai in a computer that had never witnessed or experienced these phenomena? how do you know i am not an ai talking to you right now? could you prove it?

[username18333]

hmm but how do explain constant mass and distance without expressing evidence that originated only from your senses.. could you explain it only through precisely rational thought without using anything from subjective experience that would make sense to me were i an ai in a computer that had never witnessed or experienced these phenomena? how do you know i am not an ai talking to you right now? could you prove it?

:  a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also :  extreme egocentrism

[tarzan2]

exactly! merriam-webster is right on point.. i guess theres a reason its so ubiquitous
though typically  when i've encountered such questions they are posed as "mind-body duality" type thought experiments- i think extreme egoism might make some people (like those that understand words instead of ideas) perceive this as something dubiously bad or wrong? dunno.. extreme egoism is exactly what questions of objectivity tend to represent

[username18333]

though typically  when i've encountered such questions they are posed as "mind-body duality" type thought experiments- i think extreme egoism might make some people (like those that understand words instead of ideas) perceive this as something dubiously bad or wrong? dunno.. extreme egoism is exactly what questions of objectivity tend to represent

Solipsism presumes but one existence—the self.

[tarzan2]

how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own? "to think therefore i am" is something some dude once said, but what could that possibly mean anyways it was like hundreds of years ago huh

from a completely rational standpoint, we are aware only of one consciousness that is capable of autonomy-our own

[username18333]

how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?

That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.

[tarzan2]

how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?

That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.

it looks like your getting it
that language tho.. sheesh they should throw a yo or dawg in there just to take things down a notch back to comprehensibility

[the joint]

how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?

That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.

it looks like your getting it
that language tho.. sheesh they should throw a yo or dawg in there just to take things down a notch back to comprehensibility

I'm rather intimidated by it.  He's the only person on this forum more dry than I am.

I might as well cry if I can't be so dry

[notbatman]

I find it curious that the discussion seems centered not on the nature of the Earth but the validity of the individual mind to know it.

[tarzan2]

I find it curious that the discussion seems centered not on the nature of the Earth but the validity of the individual mind to know it.

isnt it grand? where else can find libertarian anarchists who lack the necessary fucks to talk seriously about things in the "correct" or traditional sense... ie that land of dead horses. what i am getting at is i am glad we are more than a horse cemetary

[notbatman]

In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.

Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.

[tarzan2]

In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.

Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.

yes thats where truth lies 4shure.. i checked the tarot cards

though, i am quite certain the moon's consistency is very similar to that of southern spain, except for the fertile lands and clouds and water.. but the cheeze! manchego cheeze is supposed to be what dreams and moons-particularly the dark sides- are made of. i asked a mouse once and he gave it to me straight .. it was a in dream but the mouse was an astronaut so its gotta be legit.
i dunno man the puddles seem far fetched to me-though i do not claim to suggest that puddles do not perhaps curdle out of the milk in little cheezy saucers for the space mice to lick.. i have not yet figured out how to actually shuffle these tarot cards yet.. soon

[the joint]

I find it curious that the discussion seems centered not on the nature of the Earth but the validity of the individual mind to know it.

Logic is a predicate for truth.  Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (note: root word of 'rationale' is 'ratio').  Truth, as it is relevant to us, does not exist outside of these rational statements.  Accordingly, truth should be modeled in terms of the mind as it relates to the rest of reality.

[notbatman]

"We don't have time for a meeting of The Flat Earth Society (www.theflatearthsociety.org)" -- POTUS

That being said here's a site that's not affiliated with TFES: http://aplanetruth.info/about/

[dhenson]

In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.

Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo

Actual video taken from the International Space Station and compiled into a music video by Chris Hadfield and his son.  No conspiracy or hidden agenda, just an inspiring peek into how amazing it is to live now, when we do with the technology we have.

[notbatman]

In a previous thread I described my attempt to visualize or imagine what the dark side of the Moon looks like as every available photo is fake, I tried to be creative. I then looked back upon the Earth and saw that it was a flat unmoving frozen plane as far as the minds eye can see. It was dotted with little puddles each lit and kept warm with their own little Sun and a vortex of stars above churning around.

Fearful that my imagination was running away on me I started this thread in hopes of restoring my belief in the established science of globalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOC9danxNo

Actual video taken from the International Space Station and compiled into a music video by Chris Hadfield and his son.  No conspiracy or hidden agenda, just an inspiring peak into how amazing it is to live now, when we do with the technology we have.

Wow, what a performance! 

[the joint]

how can you be certain of anyone else's existence but your own?

That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

No mechanism whereby a self could ascertain the extrinsic-thereto could exist extrinsic to it; therefore, the self cannot be (conclusively) said to perceive anything beyond itself. However, “the self” is an element of the phenomenology of consciousness and exists within the real only insofar as the "meta-representations" (Cleeremans 1, 4, 6-7, 10-1) that precipitate it so exist.

Even in the way a set relates to its extrinsic powerset?

[username18333]

Even in the way a set relates to its extrinsic powerset?

If a powerset is said to exist independently of the set wherefrom it was derived, then the relation of the two is, logically, no different than the relation of an apple and an orange, which both consist of matter. (Not sure if that answers your question though. [It is not clear to me what, specifically, you intended to reference with your "Even".])