If I can imagine it, it is possible!

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Oh yeah, right !

🤣

Because , Very Dear Studiot Supernerd , any concept of Being/Existence is in fact dependent upon human Beings themselves. A Self  would otherwise have no reliable grounds of existence. Imagination is thus Carnal ( Corporeal , so to speak ).  

As a psychological conflict with the opposition of my own body against the self-distancing objectifications by its own Imaginative  FACULTY, the Other as a  collective confrontation between bodies has been made simultaneously—but incommensurably— intelligible by an isolated and rational reaction on the  one hand AND by a sense of mutual and subjective obligation on the other;  these two instances foreground the superiority of the simply observable and a consequent impoverishment of Creativity in contemporary post-industrial digital society. This is notwithstanding the fact that these incidents of Entities arising from a posteriori IMAGINATION may appear worlds apart and definitely are not reducible one to the other. 

🙃  🙃

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Oh yeah, right !

🤣

Because , Very Dear Studiot Supernerd , any concept of Being/Existence is in fact dependent upon human Beings themselves. A Self  would otherwise have no reliable grounds of existence. Imagination is thus Carnal ( Corporeal , so to speak ).  

As a psychological conflict with the opposition of my own body against the self-distancing objectifications by its own Imaginative  FACULTY, the Other as a  collective confrontation between bodies has been made simultaneously—but incommensurably— intelligible by an isolated and rational reaction on the  one hand AND by a sense of mutual and subjective obligation on the other;  these two instances foreground the superiority of the simply observable and a consequent impoverishment of Creativity in contemporary post-industrial digital society. This is notwithstanding the fact that these incidents of Entities arising from a posteriori IMAGINATION may appear worlds apart and definitely are not reducible one to the other. 

🙃  🙃

Edited March 2, 2021 by Prof Reza Sanaye

[jday]

I personally believe that anything imagined is possible. If you think about it we generalize information based on how our minds perceive the situation and classify it in a common group. For example language it is a human way of communicating but there isn't a wrong way of speaking we just view anything out of the ordinary as unusual and doesn't fit in out category of information understood.

[zapatos]

12 hours ago, jday said:

I personally believe that anything imagined is possible. 

I can imagine myself lifting a rhino. Or seeing my son being born again. How can that be possible to do in reality?

[Bufofrog]

12 hours ago, jday said:

I personally believe that anything imagined is possible.

I don't believe you.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

13 hours ago, jday said:

I personally believe that anything imagined is possible. If you think about it we generalize information based on how our minds perceive the situation and classify it in a common group. For example language it is a human way of communicating but there isn't a wrong way of speaking we just view anything out of the ordinary as unusual and doesn't fit in out category of information understood.

As per Scottish philosopher David Hume, nothing we envision is totally unlikely. We will describe the skills required to bring these images to life—to allow them as technologies—once we have the capacity to shape images in our minds. Our imagination produces only representations of hope based on our observations of the world surrounding us. It's true that anything that is unlikely is often unthinkable.

[Area54]

2 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

As per Scottish philosopher David Hume, nothing we envision is totally unlikely.

Please specify where he says this. (Work, edition and page number would be helpful.)

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389505/summary

 

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-imagination-in-humes-philosophy-the-canvas-of-the-mind/

 

https://philpapers.org/archive/DORH-2.pdf

 

https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/  

 

To mention only four reliable sources on Hume's thoughts on imagination . . . . . If they really truly solve the issue at discussion here . . .. 

[Area54]

51 minutes ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/389505/summary

 

https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/the-imagination-in-humes-philosophy-the-canvas-of-the-mind/

 

https://philpapers.org/archive/DORH-2.pdf

 

https://iep.utm.edu/hume-ima/  

 

To mention only four reliable sources on Hume's thoughts on imagination . . . . . If they really truly solve the issue at discussion here . . .. 

Thank you for the links. We clearly have different interpretations of the meaning of "specify".

[Bufofrog]

22 hours ago, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

It's true that anything that is unlikely is often unthinkable.

I think this is a stupid idea which, I guess, means it's likely that it is a stupid idea.

On the other hand, I can imagine lightning is actually Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the clouds, which seems unlikely to me.

"I think, therefore I yam what I yam"... - Popeye.

[Prof Reza Sanaye]

25 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I think this is a stupid idea which, I guess, means it's likely that it is a stupid idea.

On the other hand, I can imagine lightning is actually Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the clouds, which seems unlikely to me.

"I think, therefore I yam what I yam"... - Popeye.

The truth of the matter is that reality would not be that  tight a  tissue. It does not hesitate until you take the most shocking phenomena or dismiss our own imagination's most possible figures.
Perception isn't a science; it's not an act, it's not an intentional takeover; it's the context from which all actions come and are meant to emerge. Hhhmm  ??

[jday]

On 3/14/2021 at 11:42 AM, zapatos said:

I can imagine myself lifting a rhino. Or seeing my son being born again. How can that be possible to do in reality?

I understand your reason to think so but where does it say that it is impossible for that to happen yes we are limited to the amount of knowledge and understanding but it hasn't been proven to be impossible 

On 3/15/2021 at 11:50 AM, Bufofrog said:

I think this is a stupid idea which, I guess, means it's likely that it is a stupid idea.

On the other hand, I can imagine lightning is actually Zeus throwing lightning bolts from the clouds, which seems unlikely to me.

"I think, therefore I yam what I yam"... - Popeye.

There is a distinct difference between evidence that could be proven by facts rather than that of a n thought will not way to make it possible.  You are stating a god throwing lightings bolts but the whole understand if or if not god is still debatable. Lets put it into context I can can imagine cats flying (an example) but I would have to do background research of how it can be possible. Put simply imagining whatever you want to be possible could be likened to theory you will need evidence to support you claim. But tell me how would you to research to understand the reason of you imagination.  It's not stupid what could be stupid is not finding ways that support the claim of their being a chance of a possibility even if the chances are slim. 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, jday said:

I understand your reason to think so but where does it say that it is impossible for that to happen yes we are limited to the amount of knowledge and understanding but it hasn't been proven to be impossible 

Yes. It has.

[Bill McC]

On 9/20/2013 at 11:22 AM, ajb said:

They also miss the fact that concepts in physics are inherently mathematical as they are tied to theory. Some seem more natural than others, but when it really comes to it we are phrasing things within a model and comparing this with nature.

 

Discussions about energy not being real, or time or whatever can more or less be applied to any concept in physics. The objections become very metaphysical quickly and rarely clarify the understanding of what physics is and what physics can really do.

Herein lies the problem; it is like two drunken people having a somewhat violent argument, neither with the total picture, arguing from two known points that may be known by each, or at least both have substantial proofs. Or it could be two points that both hold some water but do not form a total picture or understanding. The first to call the police do tend not to get tasered. Does that mean that either one was right or wrong? I look at our government as the police in that scenario; they have a plan, having bought and paid for science. They now hold a controlling interest in science. The bigger a private company, the more danger of being shut down by the government they are in, if only by being accused of "monopoly" after the EPA and IRS are not successful. 

Benjamin Franklin built a statically powered turkey spit that powered the spit for 20 minutes, from a few strokes of a laden jar with his hand. You may be able to find some material about this on the internet if you are really interested. He also created an open-air transistor that turned the flow of lightning voltage on and off from a wire on his hillside home's roof during a lightning storm. Most come away from college today with far less understanding of electricity than Benjamin Franklin had. Benjamin Franklin had even worked out using dehydrated gases to make use of static electricity all year long. His device was over unity; the universe is a perpetual motion device described by Newton's work. Benjamin Franklin's idea was to end slavery with perpetual motion. 
I cannot imagine that it would be illegal to patent or receive UL approval for perpetual motion devices if they did not exist. Why would the government care if you patented a silly invention? There are millions of silly patents if you look through patents; only silly people would pay for it if it didn't work. Today the government lets you buy lottery tickets on your cell phone. Why would they do that and spend millions on gamblers anonymous? So other than science alone, the fact the government does or does not promote or stop an activity has no moral or logical reasons behind it. Something that George Washington recognized many years ago. 
"Government is not reason: it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." George Washington.

Poor George and Benjamin Franklin had fought so hard to end slavery and taxation in the colonies. As soon as the war was over, Hamilton, once again, just like Britain had done for hundreds of years, rallied support to hide that money is only made on a printing press and cannot be tied to gold if a penny on the dollar tax exists upon it. He also hid how a country has unlimited funding for infrastructure. 

Warning this below is extremely dangerous and cause instant death. 

If you have ever fooled around with transformers and "V" poles, you might have to change your position on the subject of perpetual motion or at least question it.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Bill McC
Included safety warning

[MigL]

You gotta stop living in the past.
Science has moved on since B Franklin.

AJB was  ( still is ) one of our most well respected members.
Don't be putting him into the same sentence as idiotic perpetual motion machines.

Stick to what you know; ask questions about what you don't.

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, Bill McC said:

If you have ever fooled around with transformers and "V" poles, you might have to change your position on the subject of perpetual motion or at least question it.

I hear that eating paste and paint chips with lead in them generally leads to similar outcomes. 

[MonDie]

On 9/20/2013 at 8:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

 

So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

The thread topic seems rather trivial until you consider that "possibility", much like the set theory problem above, is really a non-referential linguistic operation that describes our use of language rather than any particular referent or experience except the experience of using language.  A statement of possibility describes a hypothetical validity rather than a factual validity because it pertains to the unknown, but as the unknown becomes known then the hypothetical possibilities narrow toward the factual reality.  Thus "possibility" pertains to knowledge rather than reality.  Even your set theory problem makes more sense after considering that "sets" are a useful product of psychology and language rather than empirical investigation of the world, and insofar that a set is imaginary a set is free to produce the sorts of contradictions that are necessary to guide a logical operation toward its appropriate conclusion.

err "factual *veracity*", not "validity"

A good analogy is a wrench that doesn't fit any bolts.  The wrench still exists, it just doesn't work.  If my cult happened to worship that mis-shapen wrench, however, that wrench would suddenly become an important aspect of my world in the minds of myself and culties.

😋

[joigus]

On 3/2/2021 at 8:17 PM, Prof Reza Sanaye said:

Because , Very Dear Studiot Supernerd , any concept of Being/Existence is in fact dependent upon human Beings themselves. A Self  would otherwise have no reliable grounds of existence. Imagination is thus Carnal ( Corporeal , so to speak ).  

As a psychological conflict with the opposition of my own body against the self-distancing objectifications by its own Imaginative  FACULTY, the Other as a  collective confrontation between bodies has been made simultaneously—but incommensurably— intelligible by an isolated and rational reaction on the  one hand AND by a sense of mutual and subjective obligation on the other;  these two instances foreground the superiority of the simply observable and a consequent impoverishment of Creativity in contemporary post-industrial digital society. This is notwithstanding the fact that these incidents of Entities arising from a posteriori IMAGINATION may appear worlds apart and definitely are not reducible one to the other. 

🙃  🙃

Because , Very Dear Studiot Supernerd , any concept of Being/Existence is in fact dependent upon human Beings themselves. A Self  would otherwise have no reliable grounds of existence. Imagination is thus Carnal ( Corporeal , so to speak ).  

As a psychological conflict with the opposition of my own body against the self-distancing objectifications by its own Imaginative  FACULTY, the Other as a  collective confrontation between bodies has been made simultaneously—but incommensurably— intelligible by an isolated and rational reaction on the  one hand AND by a sense of mutual and subjective obligation on the other;  these two instances foreground the superiority of the simply observable and a consequent impoverishment of Creativity in contemporary post-industrial digital society. This is notwithstanding the fact that these incidents of Entities arising from a posteriori IMAGINATION may appear worlds apart and definitely are not reducible one to the other. 

🙃  🙃

Uh, uh. Somebody didn't like your text formatting.  

[Ryan Williams]

On 3/14/2021 at 6:25 PM, Bufofrog said:

I don't believe you.

think anyone can believe in what they want to 🙂

[Phi for All]

43 minutes ago, Ryan Williams said:

think anyone can believe in what they want to 🙂

I don't believe that's true.

[Bufofrog]

6 hours ago, Ryan Williams said:

think anyone can believe in what they want to

Sure they can, but I still don't think jday believes what he wrote. 

[MonDie]

8 hours ago, Ryan Williams said:

think anyone can believe in what they want to 🙂

One.  Actually, I have to believe you believe it.

Two.  My belief should be consequential to me to be part of my perspective, or it should be part of somebody's perspective to constitute a meaningful statement.

[tar]

I do not believe the imagining of something makes it possible.  I believe it works the other way 'round.

When we imagine something it is an "image" of reality.  The images we float though our minds and combine and synthesize in various manners are made up of sensory information we gleaned from reality.  What we thought about before, what we saw, heard, felt, smelt, tasted or experience through any sense, existed, was possible, had to be, in order for us to sense it in the first place.  Our brains "matched" what it imagined against what the eyes, ears, fingers, nose, tongue, inner ear, emotions, pleasure/reward system noticed about reality before.

It is a must that reality fit itself.  It is NOT a must that our image of reality fit reality.  In fact just thinking it, does not manifest into reality that others can experience.  You have to do something to bring it into reality.  You have to communicate your thought, or build a model, or adjust reality in some way to contain your image.

That is, the greater the number of things about reality that have to change in order for your idea about reality to be correct, or possible, the less likely it is that you are correct or that the thing is possible.

If  nothing about reality has to change in order for your image of reality to be correct, then you have it exactly right.

Example.  You cannot contain the universe within your skull.  You brain is a tiny finite size and consist only of images of what actually is.

[zapatos]

Long time no see tar! Welcome back! 😁

[tar]

11 hours ago, zapatos said:

Long time no see tar! Welcome back! 😁

I enjoyed this board a lot.

Made some friends and had some great discussions and learned a lot.

Got run off by Hillary Trolls.

Came back to post my solution to the spherical coordinate challenge I had posed to myself.

Saw this thread and had to respond.O

It is important to me that crack pots and scientist recognize that they are both working from essentially the same viewpoint.  A human viewpoint.  And the world is a whole lot bigger than any one person's image of it.  For that matter it is a whole lot bigger and more complex than all the images of all the scientists, since man started communicating with him or herself.

The scientist and the crackpot have almost exactly the same brain, with all the same chemicals and sections with various functions.  Bodies match pretty closely too and the same chemicals are in the brain with the same dopamine/serotonin/norepinephrine in both the scientist and the crackpot, working on in most cases the same problems, with the scientist having more information and the results of more investigations and a better understanding of the collective models.  However it is important for the scientist to realize that math is happening in the mind, in the imagination.  It is not affecting the outside world until it is used to build something or create something in the outside world or in some other mind.  

Models of the world are just that.  Internal analogous representations of outside the brain reality.  Knowing the math means you know the model.  The model, by definition is incomplete.  It is not reality itself.  If reality fits the model it is because the model is consistent and well designed.  But reality is under NO compunction to fit the model.

Imagination can be wrong.  Optical illusions can give the eyes and brain misinformation.  Old age can dull the hearing. Taste buds can be dulled by spices, matching facilities in the brain can get old and once sharp minds can become a little dull and slow.

Point being, I have great respect for the crackpot, because I am one.  The difference between me and a scientist is slight.  Has mostly to do with experience and knowledge of conventions.  

The actual world remains exactly the same regardless of our knowledge of it.

On Earth we change stuff all the time.

In space we just have moved a few rocks and sent out radio signals.  

Just because you imagine something does not make it possible.

What is possible is what we build our imaginations from.

[dimreepr]

53 minutes ago, tar said:

Point being, I have great respect for the crackpot, because I am one.  The difference between me and a scientist is slight.  Has mostly to do with experience and knowledge of conventions. 

The difference is understanding the knowledge, a crackpot just assumes knowledge is for all to see; without the need of learning.

For instance, can you build a car; because you know how an engine work's?