When you concentrate you also ignore stuff.
(we all concentrate, for work, play, reading, studying, school … we practice it in school … people who are good at it are “good workers”…)
But you call it CONCENTRATION instead of IGNORING because the stuff you concentrate on gets easy-to-see but the stuff you ignore sorta fades away (and then you stop thinking about it, and then it disappears).
The stuff you concentrate on is relatively small. A book. An idea. A game. An attractive girl’s butt. A plan for the future. A tv show.
And that stuff getting ignored is relatively HUGE. Like a whole invisible universe there.
It’s spooky when you think of it. Like a little bit of DIY brain surgery that everybody does but nobody talks about. Like we’re all a bunch of Harry Potters casting obliviate upon ourselves.
And then we forgot that we cast it, because it’s obliviate.
So tell me what you think.
Okay: No. Concentration isn’t “some kind of magic conspiracy”. It’s just a thing the human brain does.
You need to read less Harry Potter and touch more grass. There’s no such thing as magic.
Thanks. Nobody can accuse you of etc.
But what do you mean by “magic”?
I mean, it’s funny to talk about something like that.
You’re the one who brought up magic. While I respect the “nostupidquestions” mindset, I think the line has to be drawn that there’s really no point in asking whether or not something is supernatural in nature. Because obviously it isn’t.
So you would say that magic is supernatural. Like “outside of nature”.
Or to put it more plainly, “something that does not fit nicely within conventional models of nature/reality”
Personally I would define magic as “physical phenomena which cannot be explained by science”.
I like this definition because it doesn’t exclude things we have simply not yet been able to explain with science. In other words, nothing. There are no physical phenomena in the universe which science is not equipped to explain. Magic isn’t real.
Assuming that any real phenomenon can be rendered by my (scientific etc) model, any phenomenon that cannot be thus rendered must be unreal.
Hmm?
Is there a question here? If so, you need to ask it in a more coherent way.
Also I’m pretty sure you’re using the word “rendered” wrong. I’ve never seen it used to mean “explained”
Oh without a doubt.