42

>>17082677
>ontological argument
Alright.

Are there colors beyond our perception?
Science seems to say so.
But we can't imagine it.
It is simply as Bacon puts it "beyond experience".

my dmt experience says otherwise.
my peyote experience too, although i preferred more worldly stuff like lsd, weed or alcohol.

but still, quit it: you don't wanna lose your hang on this world

>>17082692

Oh shut the fuck up you stupid neck-beard, your drugs didn't do anything but get you high in your parents basement. Go back to the enlightened threads and spout your silly bullshit there

Yes, yes, and no.

>>17082700

Sweet opinion bro.

File: funny.png (586KB, 814x844px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 814x844px

I drew this right now then found this thread. It's a sign.

>>17082713
Sure

>>17082677
You're an idiot, get in touch with the universe and you will be suprised what you see.

I'm sure theres alot shamans and Buddhists monks don't tell us.

File: 1405803215125.jpg (36KB, 369x500px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 369x500px

>>17082677
That which cannot be put into words/perceived by physical experience, is what you're describing, and that quality is ineffability.

Because ineffability exists, there is things that we can imagine that cannot be real; that cannot be felt, seen, heard, tasted, or smelled.
Furthermore, it can't be finely hewed into into the concepts that define our perceptions.
We can only experience it by imagination, but yet not experience it, hence it's something not possible in our universe.

Such as this anons DMT experience >>17082692 is a good example of ineffability, but was it physical experience?
No, it was an imaginative experience - within this context - and not possible within physicality (i.e. with normal perceptions, what we define as real, not cognitive).

>Now is that because our universe is containing everything that could ever happen
For this particular set of universal laws, and implied limits, sure.
However, I can imagine a completely different scenario of "this", but yet there are no words to properly describe it... yet I can imagine the implications of such a thing, but yet the essential concept of perception is missing; making a sort of paradoxical universe of non-existence yet it still flows on non-living in a paradoxical way compared to our own (like living, but with alternate laws that define living as a means that is contrary to our own, hence non-living from our perceptions).
Yet this isn't the correct words, and again we can't physically experience it, so you'll never know what I'm describing; only to experience it through imagination.

>So is what we imagine considered possible?
As I mentioned, not always.

>Is it because our brains are just like that?
Maybe your brain is.

You can think of different things not in our universe or things not yet perceived. You don't need drugs. You have to break it down at a per item basis. If you want to imagine new colors you haven't seen before you need to understand how colors work. Use that knowledge to adjust attributes. It's not easy but our pattern recognition is excellent for creativity

>>17082736
So you're saying that maybe OP can't imagine things beyond the limits of our perception, but YOU can??

We can imagine all sorts of fantastical and impossible things, just take a trip to the fantasy section of your local book store. But we can't imagine things beyond our perception.

You can't imagine a 4-dimensional object
You can't imagine a square circle

Hell you can't even imagine colors outside of our visible spectrum. Or the sound of a dog whistle. And those things actually exist!

Don't tell me you can. You're either lying or roleplaying.

>>17082770

THIS SHIT MAN, fucking everyone on /x/ thinks they have some kind of super brain or something. He imagined beyond the limits of his perception right into his parents fucking basement.

>>17082725
Well, thanks for nothing fag

>>17082736
>there is things that we can imagine that cannot be real; that cannot be felt, seen, heard, tasted, or smelled
Please enlighten me on that one
What I understand by that must be feelings or emotions which are chemical reactions
Same as thoughts. They are just brain waves and neuron impulses.
So everything we imagine is actually real, it's made of psyhical matter.

>>17082681
Maybe there are, and they could be seen by vision augmentation

>>17082770
Our minds can't even quit thinking dimensions


Also I don't need drugs, I have synesthesia

>>17082779
you always say stuff like that. So what's eating you? You know FDR lived with his mom most his life. I think frued too. many others.

Try to Imagine something Very 2D ( a character designed for a western cartoon in 2D) existing in our world, it wont even make sense, try to imagine how could it interact with everything and try to go arround it and see its body rotating, it is fucking mindblowing.

>>17082820
n-th dimensional objects collapse in n+1-th dimension
Just like a piece of paper trying to stand

Imagine a new color, not yet discovered.

Good luck.

Was doing a final for one of my courses.

>>17082770
>So you're saying that maybe OP can't imagine things beyond the limits of our perception, but YOU can??
I'm merely stating the fact that we can imagine things that don't conform to our natural perceptions; or as OP said "imagine something that can't be felt by our senses".
>sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell

We cannot physically experience them with our senses, and hence they're not real to us; it is not possible in our universe, and potentially operating on a wholly different means.
>OP has a flaw in their logic, a non sequitur, that's what you're in a huff about
>as that which can only be imagined is not real in our universe, not experienced by the senses
>as to define something as real means it is NOT *only* cognitive
>as in, once a consensus of cognition is made between multiple cognitive beings, of say a chair, we then define that chair as real; this is due to us being able to experience it with the senses, like touch and sight, or smelling the leather of the chair

Although, we can imagine things beyond these senses, like axioms/laws of some foreign mathematics, and how they would function; in addition their implications of some existence/paradoxical non-existence that still functions by some order of laws/axioms.
Due to us not being able to make it "real", and it being "beyond our physical senses", we can imagine things beyond what we - the perceiver - can experience, and it remains wholly cognitive.

>You can't imagine a 4-dimensional object
You can't? huh

>Don't tell me you can. You're either lying or roleplaying.
You're either thick or only see what you want to believe.

>>17082785
>Please enlighten me on that one
Read above.

>>17082899

Neck-beard trying to argue that his brain is gooder

File: 1449656284974.jpg (17KB, 382x284px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 382x284px

>>17082870
Instead of three base colors, there are four base colors.

In some other existence this could be possible, we can imagine the implications, yet not the outcome.

>>17082910
>you know you've won when your opponent resorts to an ad hominem

>>17082915

I'm not the same guy I just thought you were a retarded neck-beard who needed some berating. Sadness confirmed when you called me your opponent. Living in a basement all your life has made your brain the goodest.

File: 1449789153638.jpg (55KB, 503x518px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 503x518px

>>17082927
keep trying, anon!

Never give up!

>>17082915
Well that would need a whole new design on the universe

File: order.gif (646KB, 300x200px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 300x200px

>>17082947
>You can't imagine anything different than our universe.
>that would need a whole new design on the universe

OP's initial point == false

>>17082960
I mean it would be still based on atoms and some pretty fundamental rules because this is what actually makes colors exist, right?
And this particular example of 4 base colors implies that you can see them because they are colors, right?
Following?

>>17082677
take Acid OP

>>17082971
It's EM radiation, i.e. what we can see is called the visible light spectrum.
We see the light that's reflect off an object, light that isn't absorbed, and our eyes absorb that reflected EM energy.

>And this particular example of 4 base colors implies that you can see them because they are colors, right?
I would assume it requires a potentially expanded range of absorption of EM spectrum, as in, the optical nerves perceives an expanded color palette due to being able to see a larger spectrum of EM waves.
Though it could be something else intently... like seeing the radiation of EM waves from objects or something (like being able to see the EM energy objects emit constantly, without the visible light spectrum, such as seeing in the dark).

It's not a different universe actually, but naturally expanded perceptual abilities; or technologically expanded capabilities such as infrared vision.

>>17082681
That's not the ontological argument you idiot. He's begging the question.