Posted by Bruce Duensing
Those of you who are familiar with the history of consensus reality, may recall this remnant of empirical confusion. Flies from rotting meat. Frogs from annual floods. An interesting case from the casebook of sensate observation misfiled under proof.
The concept of species spontaneously appearing was revamped by rational materialists as the act of observation itself was then given an extension by the studying of observations of relationships in a much more detailed causal chain of events. Newtonian mechanisms of cause and effect. The rotting meat does not produce flies, the flies lay eggs in the meat and so on.
Of course to define flies as biological machines in the gears of a larger machine, leads to the planet itself as a sort of sophisticated machine as well as ourselves.
However in terms of this consensus, we admit all of this is referential and circumstantial in relation to experience. Above all,the world of humankind is built upon stereotype and cliche. Language, celestial movements, your face...the coffee table appearing in the morning where you left it last night. All of this infers a certain stability of relationships.
We are faced with an extremely sophisticated set of relationships within a machine which in turn operates upon another machine like a clockwork of gears. Whether it is thermostatic or fractal, or cybernetic...we are deep into the systems thinking of more and more sophisticated models of machinery.
However, we are subjects subjected to the experience of objects of this machinery, whether they be physical or thought itself. This set of relationships in the psyche give rise to the idea of consciousness as defined by a set of referential relationships.
No one is able to grasp the purpose of this machine except within the equally speculative claims of atheists toward the very rationality they ironically champion.
Increasingly we see examples of spontaneous generation. Deep woods produce Skunk Apes. Atmosphere produces anomalous craft, tropical climates produce Goat Suckers, deserts produce Nature Spirits. All have natural environments. We don't experience goat suckers in Canada or Skunk Apes in the desert, etc. Why is this?
Are we ourselves capable of producing a spontaneity of generation formulated with the language of location and referential relationships? This is our form of measurement which produces an effect.
Can the subject itself produce an object of experience which then he becomes a subject of? A self referential form of energy? The answer is largely no with some notable exceptions in the field of consensus. If so,then is this why the more attention (as all is energy)...that is focused upon these objects, the more experiential and circumstantial evidence is produced?
Or is it as I suspect,Is an intermediary form of energy between the observer and the observed influencing both equally as an enabling conditional factor that provides this phenomenon? Is this a formulation of sentience as an agency of unintended deconstruction that acts as a mirror with one foot in material physics and one in potentiality? Is this an unintended or intentional application of the observer providing camouflage under the assertion of a unknown field? Consider Dr Link's strobe photograph at the top of the page in Loch Ness. Or is it likened to an atmospheric condition as a precursor to lightning? I think it's perhaps the former rather than the latter.
We focus on externals. Perhaps we are back to square one. Flies from hamburger, frogs from floods....in other words..a misreading of relationships...From the external aspects of space travel,the external environmental factors of Skunk Apes based on circumstantial evidence which is produced experientially by the terms of the observer.
Are we leading ourselves in a quantum circle?
Did the advent of quantum theory as a form of consensus change the terms of relationships of experiential relations between subject and object?
An anonymous observer made the following comments;
"You can think of the observer effect as a means of enforcing the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP)even when given perfect measuring apparatuses. In fact, according to modern understanding, a particle does not even have a definite position or velocity until it it measured. It's not that we don't know, it's that there's nothing to know. HUP is a limit not on what we can find out, but what there is to know. (look up Bell's Inequalities for more confusion)"
Can information processing in it's own language in create a field of perception that has a quasi material nature that can be traced back to the observer as it's co-creator? Certainly if so, this would be a misdirection of attention pointing to an empty wood, an empty loch, and empty airspace.
Click below to see a video on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45KGS1Ro-sc
http://materialintangible.blogspot.com/ ... ation.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
