The Night Birds - CSE 2018

jill

Small shops. Like the Aurelia showroom in karol bagh. They stare at you like anything. You end up feeling bad and

1ManArmy

Small shops. Like the Aurelia showroom in karol bagh. They stare at you like anything. You end up feeling bad and

Hmm

1ManArmy

I need a single occupancy room with independent attached washroom, no landlord interference, in Old Rajinder Nagar. Male.

Got leads?

Hit me up!

Monsieur

How is indu sarkar? Is it worth watching in the theatre?

Mr.Cauliflower

Some people have like Cauliflower, jill, howard and tudor have great imagination and argumentative skills here, if harnessed nicely and trained properly, they can be great authors of various genres. Keep writing fellas.

Thank you, Sir.

Howard_Roark

Answer writing krke dimag ka dahi ho gaya.....ab relaxation........

Howard_Roark

Now this,

I sometimes feel that we all are watching a 3D movie without glasses. We can only see the 2D effect of it and those glasses can only be attained by some form of extraordinary mental level.

True. This reminded me of Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason, he questions and disputes the credibility of these "glasses" themselves, and that whether the observations aided via the apparatus (the glasses, in this case) are really absolute and unquestionable. For instance, a colourblind's perception of the world will be at odds with that of a normal person's, but that doesn't make his own personal observations any less veracious, for both accounts are equally truthful. The fault here, thus, lies in the apparatus (his eyes, the "glasses") itself. But here enters another paradox. Whose account is more true - the colorblind's or the normal person's? The answer to this begs the search for a true frame of reference, in other words, an absolute truth, for which we have to look beyond all the empirical experience that the glasses offer . Kant says that our knowledge about space and time arises 'with' experience and not 'from' experience, that we cannot know reality "in itself" (the 'noumenal' world), but only what we perceive through the glasses (the 'phenomenal' world). We can never take off our glasses to see whether space and time are actually existent. This very realisation proves that 'knowledge' need not confirm to 'reality' and destroys the very foundation of world of science, mathematics, logic and experience the first step if each of these is 'observation' and they constitute the 'phenomenal' world, a world that we see through our glasses.

Samajhne k liye isko energy or patience chahiye.....sab upar upar jaa raha hai...... Optional kya hai Tudor bhai aapka. Aap engineer ho ye to pakka hai.

Mr.Cauliflower

Now this,

I sometimes feel that we all are watching a 3D movie without glasses. We can only see the 2D effect of it and those glasses can only be attained by some form of extraordinary mental level.

True. This reminded me of Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason, he questions and disputes the credibility of these "glasses" themselves, and that whether the observations aided via the apparatus (the glasses, in this case) are really absolute and unquestionable. For instance, a colourblind's perception of the world will be at odds with that of a normal person's, but that doesn't make his own personal observations any less veracious, for both accounts are equally truthful. The fault here, thus, lies in the apparatus (his eyes, the "glasses") itself. But here enters another paradox. Whose account is more true - the colorblind's or the normal person's? The answer to this begs the search for a true frame of reference, in other words, an absolute truth, for which we have to look beyond all the empirical experience that the glasses offer . Kant says that our knowledge about space and time arises 'with' experience and not 'from' experience, that we cannot know reality "in itself" (the 'noumenal' world), but only what we perceive through the glasses (the 'phenomenal' world). We can never take off our glasses to see whether space and time are actually existent. This very realisation proves that 'knowledge' need not confirm to 'reality' and destroys the very foundation of world of science, mathematics, logic and experience the first step if each of these is 'observation' and they constitute the 'phenomenal' world, a world that we see through our glasses.

Mind blown. Now even if we somehow create an ideal frame, say glasses, then this universe is so vast that the point of observation makes a valid difference in observation.

This way, observation is, in itself, an integration of common senses and should be generalised so.It is sometimes juxtaposed with some abstract, which itself later becomes abstract reference when we confront a similar reality.

Hence, empirical and abstract may change positions based on the experiences of the observer.

This holds good for science. But ironically this can also be implied to super-natural objects.

Where am I heading?

Howard_Roark

Now this,

I sometimes feel that we all are watching a 3D movie without glasses. We can only see the 2D effect of it and those glasses can only be attained by some form of extraordinary mental level.

True. This reminded me of Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason, he questions and disputes the credibility of these "glasses" themselves, and that whether the observations aided via the apparatus (the glasses, in this case) are really absolute and unquestionable. For instance, a colourblind's perception of the world will be at odds with that of a normal person's, but that doesn't make his own personal observations any less veracious, for both accounts are equally truthful. The fault here, thus, lies in the apparatus (his eyes, the "glasses") itself. But here enters another paradox. Whose account is more true - the colorblind's or the normal person's? The answer to this begs the search for a true frame of reference, in other words, an absolute truth, for which we have to look beyond all the empirical experience that the glasses offer . Kant says that our knowledge about space and time arises 'with' experience and not 'from' experience, that we cannot know reality "in itself" (the 'noumenal' world), but only what we perceive through the glasses (the 'phenomenal' world). We can never take off our glasses to see whether space and time are actually existent. This very realisation proves that 'knowledge' need not confirm to 'reality' and destroys the very foundation of world of science, mathematics, logic and experience the first step if each of these is 'observation' and they constitute the 'phenomenal' world, a world that we see through our glasses.

Mind blown. Now even if we somehow create an ideal frame, say glasses, then this universe is so vast that the point of observation makes a valid difference in observation.

This way, observation is, in itself, an integration of common senses and should be generalised so.It is sometimes juxtaposed with some abstract, which itself later becomes abstract reference when we confront a similar reality.

Hence, empirical and abstract may change positions based on the experiences of the observer.

This holds good for science. But ironically this can also be implied to super-natural objects.

Where am I heading?

Bhai... Tumlog is duniya k nahi ho.... Kya kya bol rahe ho.

Mr.Cauliflower

Now this,

I sometimes feel that we all are watching a 3D movie without glasses. We can only see the 2D effect of it and those glasses can only be attained by some form of extraordinary mental level.

True. This reminded me of Kant. In his Critique of Pure Reason, he questions and disputes the credibility of these "glasses" themselves, and that whether the observations aided via the apparatus (the glasses, in this case) are really absolute and unquestionable. For instance, a colourblind's perception of the world will be at odds with that of a normal person's, but that doesn't make his own personal observations any less veracious, for both accounts are equally truthful. The fault here, thus, lies in the apparatus (his eyes, the "glasses") itself. But here enters another paradox. Whose account is more true - the colorblind's or the normal person's? The answer to this begs the search for a true frame of reference, in other words, an absolute truth, for which we have to look beyond all the empirical experience that the glasses offer . Kant says that our knowledge about space and time arises 'with' experience and not 'from' experience, that we cannot know reality "in itself" (the 'noumenal' world), but only what we perceive through the glasses (the 'phenomenal' world). We can never take off our glasses to see whether space and time are actually existent. This very realisation proves that 'knowledge' need not confirm to 'reality' and destroys the very foundation of world of science, mathematics, logic and experience the first step if each of these is 'observation' and they constitute the 'phenomenal' world, a world that we see through our glasses.

Mind blown. Now even if we somehow create an ideal frame, say glasses, then this universe is so vast that the point of observation makes a valid difference in observation.

This way, observation is, in itself, an integration of common senses and should be generalised so.It is sometimes juxtaposed with some abstract, which itself later becomes abstract reference when we confront a similar reality.

Hence, empirical and abstract may change positions based on the experiences of the observer.

This holds good for science. But ironically this can also be implied to super-natural objects.

Where am I heading?

Bhai... Tumlog is duniya k nahi ho.... Kya mya bol rahe ho.

Hahaha ohh sorry bhai.
You need some entertainment?
Is it raining?