Your video, Kaleidoscope: See Things Differently (4K), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I love this band!!!!!!!!! *promote kaleidoscopic speedos [my EYES!]

*promote - holy kaleidoscope, Batman!

It's like an aural kaleidoscope

*timeshift every bit as good as a kaleidoscopic =o)

*notdead >> ^critical_d:

dead

That's very, very entertaining for some reason.

Loved "kaleidoscope"!

>> ^spaceman:

Why I don't care:
1) You once believed in a god.
2) You are a guy.


@spaceman | The reason why the rest of us watch and listen to "just some guy; who believed in God":

The only reason you can type your sentence is from/due-to "other" men. Religion in all forms is from "other" men (unless you claim to hear voices or a physical divinity; but, please, not as an affront to you, make sure you're not psychotic or schizophrenic before telling us your interesting story as that is the case almost always; same with drug use; same with some other illnesses: narcolepsy, sleep walking, night terrors/sleep paralysis, and many other sleep related issues and all nervous system illnesses). Only a few things below talk more about what you said.
--------------------------
--------------------------
A little more to add to the conversation. Hopefully, this gets it all out as it will be fairly long, but the video is hard to reply to in a short manner. I hope this covers a large extent of what I wish to say about this very well done video witness/testimony.


One set of values you can research and witness to it's validity on your own, as he has done. Science also allows for this methodology, using the well known precept of "The Scientific Method".

A quick example is that many people of faith, even Evid3nc3, talks of feeling "x" with their "hearts" and knowing "x" with their "soul". In science there is nothing more than a simple, yet complicated, physical processes. It's all a creation and manifestation in your brain; if you think you "feel" something with your heart you're causing minor self-hysteria to the extent of creating a minor hallucination.

The "soul" is called the(primarily in psychology, neuroscience, and neurology; there are many other terms that try to mean "you"; typically, in grossly inaccurate ways, such as: ghosts, "psychic" remote viewing, many religions use of the magical-energy-divine soul, etc...) psyche which is typically (starting from the outer-functions and moving into core-functions) sensory systems, language center, feelings, memory, and then the key-piece the neo-cortex. So it must be understood that your brain does a lot of things still baffling (mostly the mechanics or mechanisms of function and chemistry), but the overall picture is fairly clear.

But, the brain is not a floating energy source, nor is it an absolute definition at any given point or time. Depending on how and where you look at the brain the very concept of you is different. It more akin to superposition of an electron or a kaleidoscope; the definition of you is not concrete until measured and even then you are already not what was measured.

Even from what little we do know, belief plays a central role in how our neo-cortex makes decisions and operates (even with memory and other functions, which is why we do make many mistakes as it's due to how our brain physically commits to anything it must or will do; it's perhaps the single best reason to show why, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."; you don't understand the human condition if you cannot forgive...). Could this translate into a bigger picture; our connected neurons telling us to accept faith and belief, sometimes, because that is what it does at the small scale?

*Offtopic Look up articles, books, and videos (look at TED for Marvin Minsky, Jeff Hawkins, Craig Venter, Jonathan Haidt and others --some of which are here on the sift-- related topics on there like the Mind, AI, facial-pattern-contextual-semantics-divergent-cat vs. dog software based Recognition, and then other media pertaining to 'Artificial Intelligence') or if you want to know strictly about how the brain works and makes it's decisions, look for a type of setup called a "hierarchical structure"; also known as a pyramid or pyramid scheme. One cell makes a decision based off of the accumulations of "guesses" the other millions of cells connected to it made; these cells are fundamentally the foundation for that setup, but the neurons are more flexible than that as each can be a parent and also part of the "foundation" structure, making the brain a fantastic structure. With time this becomes accurate (this occurs in less than a few milliseconds), although our vision, for an example, is horrifically distorted and wrong, if you could look at one "frame" based on a few cells. Only a small fraction of the frame would be correct; literally it would be as though your senses got one pixel correct in a 1080p image. Yet, repeat this millions of times with different data sets each round (and this is done as said above, fast) you get an accurate picture; or at the least 20/20-to about one-arc minute (the resolution for the human eye, on average).

One set you can't test, we call that belief or faith. "What is the reasoning for taking the leap of faith?", this is what you have to defend at this point. If faith is your only defense, I will (like many others will) assume you haven't looked into your own faith enough yet or you even refuse to look out of fear of being wrong. If you do not understand the topic you must be willing to ask for help as he did or you'll be a slave to your willful decision of ignorance, to the extent that you feel compelled to defend them, but you never convince anyone except yourself--and for yourself it is only because of the rote-righteous indignation.

If it's true it should withstand all scrutiny. Unless truth isn't your ultimate goal. Then, for us and many others there is no reason to follow your faith. Usually, this type of merit and defense are directly related to age due to learning this all when you're a child and devoid of an intense ability to decipher, attribute values, connect, and draw in a belief (if with some facts and proof you could call it a hypothesis).

It's all from men... I'm wagering you're dismissing this flippantly due to religion; if not what exactly is your point, as I truly would like to know why and where this claim of non-relativistic knowledge comes from, without a woman or man?

Also, if it has to do with his belief in being mistaken for believing in God that's a moot point as we have all erred in life. I know of no person that has reliably been able to "claim divinity", other than Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, etc... But, we also know now that mental illness and other factors can account for any manic or psychotic leanings. We also know magicians (or magister, proper) have been around A LONG TIME.

Plus, as Arthur C. Clarke put it, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.". Which then one must ask another question, "Can divinity itself ever be established as being magic only?". This is then rounded up by a statement from Larry Niven (sometimes called Niven's Law(s)), "Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology.". These collide and distinctly form a conclusion about divinity and any of it's powers (descriptive magic or divinity and it's "how to use it" manual are indefensibly getting closer in each step to being more akin to physics; plus the Christian God hates magic, which begs the question, "Why do you need a God, if we can exact the same effects?"):

Divinity can only hope to use advanced knowledge and technology in a collusion to bring about one standpoint alone: "divinity" if described by God in any kind of ruleset (some of it is in the bible, already) stands on a rigorously tested and time shown: shaky ground.

Men would be gods whether God existed or not.

(P.S.: only the beginning and some bits here and there are for you, @spaceman. The rest is for our vestibule.)

Again I must add that this is a great find @dystopianfuturetoday.
You're doing yourself a great disservice not watching it (or all of it as the case may be).

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Gallowflak:
Puerile, nonsensical and as absurd as I've ever seen. To dismiss anti-Scientology sentiment as inhabiting the same intellectual ground as 9/11 conspiracies is fucking inane. To deride GenjiKilpatrick as being ineffectual in the world and contributing nothing, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - and simply because you disagree with his opposition to the CoS - is despicable. I don't understand what's wrong with you. Can nobody debate or discuss ideas anymore, without restorting to flailing and frothing like a toddler?
As an anecdote, my wife participated in a Scientology protest a few years ago. For two weeks straight she was stalked home by a Scientology goon who had memorized her schedule and route from work. It happens to more people than I can count. I don't think Scientology could ever be legitimately described as a non-issue.

You call what I did there flailing and frothing like a toddler? Really am I completely off the deep end saying that this internet argument won't amount to anything? That defeating CoS which you won't succeed in doing will be a boon to everyones existence? I'm not out of line here, this isn't an argument, it's me saying people who believe that CoS is a terrible scourge and deserves everyones attention and must be stopped is wrong. You're wrong if you think that we have to worry about CoS over almost ANY major issue in this country. People are actually dying for things we can fix easily and CoS isn't what's killing them. Grow up.
EDIT: Also if that's true about your wife...why didn't you call the cops? That's something you can do easily, but your story probably isn't true anyways you're just engaging in the same nasty tactics as you accuse CoS of doing...just making shit up...to be right in an argument on the internet. That's just sad.


I call what you did there "flailing and frothing like a toddler" as an expression of some misplaced hyperbole. The rest of your response contains things I've already responded to.

Large issues do not require that small issues be excluded from consideration. That's ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to compare the relative ferocity of problems when they're not related to one another. You can apply the same approach to medicine for a taste of how absurd it is; abandoning Parkinson's research in favour of a treatment for cancer, for example. Well, that's not how it works.

And no, Yogi, this "internet argument" won't amount to anything that's going to end up in the historical record. But I disagree with you. That is important enough to me to warrant an opposition to what you said.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing, though. It seems to be that your position is as I outlined in the second paragraph here, and that Scientology isn't a problem worth investing one's time in. I understand that there are issues in the world that have obscured others in your kaleidoscope of subjectivity, but those that don't concern you aren't unworthy of concern. You come across as a little bit solipsistic, and it makes me uncomfortable.

And don't call me a liar. There's no faster way to disintegrate your own legitimacy in a discussion, and it's a tactic used by those who feel like they're backed up into a corner. Tastes like ad hominem.

ooooh thank you man!!

In reply to this comment by choggie:
&&^)#*Promote

I agree, but war is a subjective experience and expecting a uniform reaction to it is expecting a bit too much.

One can easily recalls the experience from Vietnam, you had people drafted of very creed and color. Some wanted the pink mist of the thrill kill, some went to serve against what they believed was a wrong ideology and the liberation of the South Vietnamese people, many went because they didn't have a choice becuase of life circumstances. You get a kaleidoscope of reactions to the experience that has been well documented in popular culture and non-fiction press. Micheal Herr's Dispatches is a good example, war is hell no matter what cause you fight for.

An underwater gallery creates a whole new perspective on the world. Submerged objects are affected by different conditions both physical and emotional. Objects appear 25% larger and closer, colours are changed as light is absorbed differently by the water. The surface of the sea creates an ever-changing kaleidoscope of light, whilst its turbidity acts as a filter. The aquatic medium affords the viewer a multitude of angles and perspectives and thus transforms the traditional role of passive observer into an active process of discovery and engagement.

http://www.underwatersculpture.com

the kaleidoscope starts after 2 min...