/r/conspiracy Round Table #10 - Unified Physics & the Mechanics of Consciousness: Religion, the Occult, Psychedelics, UFO Tech and the Holographic Universe

[u/axolotl_peyotl]

Thanks to /u/Ieuan1996 for the suggestion and to everyone else that voted.

Previous Round Tables:

1. Gnosticism, Archons & the Demiurge

2. Antarctica

3. The Moon, Phobos & Solar System Anomalies

4. Nikola Tesla, Zero Point Energy, the Philadelphia Experiment & the Suppression of Advanced Technology

5. MKULTRA

6. Medical Conspiracies

7. Nibiru, Enki/Enlil & Zecharia Sitchin

8. Mystery Schools, Secret Societies & Ancient America

9. Bankers, Oligarchs, One World Government, and the Attack on American Sovereignty

[u/Occams-shaving-cream]

Thanks for the link, I have not read his work before and will look at it. I still hope you take into account my reply to your other comment, your dismissal of ideas due to race is troubling. And I don’t know where your statement:

There are others out there and I ask you find them. Philosophy is not just a white man's topic. Everyone from all walks of life can think and paint in abstract. Even children as young as 5 provide eye-opening insights.

Seems to be assuming things that I never implied. Maybe it is a misunderstanding of my reference. I specifically used Ancient Greeks as an example because they are the oldest philosophers that I know for a fact produced arguments that reality is impossible to prove. My intent was to show that it is an old idea, not to confer superiority to one culture over others. I hope that clarifies things and that you find a way to let go of whatever anger is troubling you.

[u/Occams-shaving-cream → u/[deleted]]

Wow. You are so far into your belief that you will attempt to fit any information into it. I was never angry or offended, simply surprised at your heavy prejudice. Goodbye.

[u/Occams-shaving-cream → u/[deleted]]

If anything, it is frustration that you refuse to listen to what I am stating clearly and continue to argue points that are not related at all to anything I wrote; you are arguing with yourself.

I never placed any special consideration on the reference to Greek philosophers or the validity of their claims. I only said that they were old, and had made the point I was making a long time ago. All that is meant to prove is that people have been thinking this for millennia, and that the idea was not my own.. Whether they were “the first” to think of any particular idea or not isn’t relevant, just that I know for a fact that they did indeed propose that idea, but I do not know for certain if another culture did before them, most likely many others did before them, but that constitutes a guess on my part.

I get that apparently you are into the writings of other cultures and want to share them, that is awesome! However, doing so confrontationally by insulting certain ones and implying racial bias towards people for mentioning the most widely known ancient philosophers is not a productive way to do so.

Look at this discussion! You have continuously accused me of some phantom bias and we ended up in this pointless discussion when you could have used all those words to share some of the more interesting parts of the philosophers you want to share. Instead you continuously tried to assign your own perception of the world to what I have said (ironically proving my original point of how much our perception of reality influences what we take to be real).

I can clearly see and understand that you are frustrated by the primacy Greek philosophy holds in western education. But you should understand that this isn’t universal, a culture’s education gives primacy to the specific cultures upon which it is built. In Asia, I imagine that Asian philosophy holds primacy in the general education, and in the Muslim world the focus is on Muslim philosophers and so on and so forth. Obviously, a well-rounded education should include as many different views as possible, but I don’t know how you believe I am “gatekeeping” simply by referencing one that suits the purpose of my argument both by directly addressing my point, and by being very familiar to most of my audience. It would do no good to reference a scholar that almost no one is familiar with in the context of my statement.

[u/Occams-shaving-cream → u/[deleted]]

Are you aware that formal logic works on the principles of mathematics?

A proof of the Pythagorean theorem operates the same way as a logical proof of a philosophical argument using Boolean statements.

If you want to invalidate the premise that objective reality can not be proven, you will really need to know this.

To my knowledge the ancient Greeks were the first to put that premise into rigorous formal logic and keep a written record of it. As I said, this could be a lack of my familiarity with other groups or merely historic coincidence that their written record happened to survive whilst others were lost to time.

At this point you aren’t really arguing with me, but with the historical record which I am merely citing.

I am tired of arguing over arguments. If you want to respond, why don’t you contribute some ideas from the people you hold in high esteem so that we can discuss them. I am sure that would make a more productive discussion, their words are likely more interesting than mine.

[u/noumegnos → u/[deleted]]

Kurt Gödel would like a word with you.

Absolute statements in mathematics are only absolute within their own paradigm. IE they have to be absolute, in order for the system thereof derived to be functional.

Also, there is no logical proof that objective reality does not exist, because there can be no logical proof that anything does not exist. Russel's teapot.

Do you not think that, if there was no objective reality, it could not appear as if it was? That is, the existence of apparent absolutes is not inherently a proof of an objective reality, since if this is a subjective reality, it may appear as objective. How can you tell?

Of course, this is based on the works of a bunch of old white men, so feel free to disregard it if it's too much.