Worldquest
New Member
tangoen said:Worldquest said:
The thin paper is good for rolling joints in a pinch too
Ain't it the truth.
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Challenge : Can you turn me into an atheist?
- Thread starter Worldquest
- Start date
- Status
Ain't it the truth.
RichardMNixon
New Member
Worldquest said:
I ask because I'm a secularist first and an atheist second. Would you agree then that you base your decisions not on faith, but on reason? If your religious beliefs have less influence on your decisions than your favorite color, I'd count you on my team already. Would you consider yourself a humanist? The rest is just whatever helps you sleep at night.
Now that we have that out of the way, I can take a crack at your philosophy. I still have no idea what you mean by your CM, sounds like some ill-defined metaphysics, but maybe that's the booze. It does however sound like you believe in something similar to karma. Would you agree?
Also how would you differentiate synchronicity from coincidence?
To me it would seem that this notion of a consciousness is somewhat akin to special pleading. You are basically advocating magic in all but name, and postulating that this being created everything simply by the power of thought.
I grant that there are two possibilities. Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. Neither make any sense. I would argue that you are simply trying to ignore either possibility by postulating the improbable, if not impossible, in order to cease worrying about the "first cause".
I grant that there are two possibilities. Either the Universe had a beginning, or it did not. Neither make any sense. I would argue that you are simply trying to ignore either possibility by postulating the improbable, if not impossible, in order to cease worrying about the "first cause".
Worldquest
New Member
RichardMNixon -
I'm not familiar with terms like securalism and humanism, and I'm going to have to look those up, which I'll do in just a moment. And the terms that I use are sometimes just me trying to come up with terms to describe my views in the best way that I can. So, conscious manifestor is my way of saying, something which is self aware, has consciousness (IS consciousness) and which causes things to "exist" (manifest). The word "create" doesn't quite describe what god does in my book, because it implies creating from absolute nothingness. I bellieve that what I call god is infinite potential, and "when" it creates, it actually manifests concepts, essences, "ness"es into "reality".
I base my beliefs or views on a cycle of faith / emotion - reason - faith / emotion - reason - faith / emotion...
I define coincidence as two or more things happening in a way where there is some advantage or disadvantage or apparent meaning, and sychronicity as the same, but with intent.
I say "when" in inverted commas for two reasons : I don't believe that god ever creat"ed" anything, I believe that everything already exists. Also I don't believe in time. I think time is an illusion. God didn't ever start with nothing and then create. God never started, and god didn't ever "do" anything at all. And I realise that I'm starting to sound like an atheist. I'm finding it very hard to explain why I'm not. And yes I believe in karma. Sort of.
Ok I've just looked up humanism. No, I'm not a humanist. I don't think humans are of the utmost importance. I think everything is of the utmost importance. There are no divisions between anything. Secularism, I'm not sure. The state shouldn't demand beliefs of people, but at the same time it's hard to have a state without implying some beliefs.
I'm not familiar with terms like securalism and humanism, and I'm going to have to look those up, which I'll do in just a moment. And the terms that I use are sometimes just me trying to come up with terms to describe my views in the best way that I can. So, conscious manifestor is my way of saying, something which is self aware, has consciousness (IS consciousness) and which causes things to "exist" (manifest). The word "create" doesn't quite describe what god does in my book, because it implies creating from absolute nothingness. I bellieve that what I call god is infinite potential, and "when" it creates, it actually manifests concepts, essences, "ness"es into "reality".
I base my beliefs or views on a cycle of faith / emotion - reason - faith / emotion - reason - faith / emotion...
I define coincidence as two or more things happening in a way where there is some advantage or disadvantage or apparent meaning, and sychronicity as the same, but with intent.
I say "when" in inverted commas for two reasons : I don't believe that god ever creat"ed" anything, I believe that everything already exists. Also I don't believe in time. I think time is an illusion. God didn't ever start with nothing and then create. God never started, and god didn't ever "do" anything at all. And I realise that I'm starting to sound like an atheist. I'm finding it very hard to explain why I'm not. And yes I believe in karma. Sort of.
Ok I've just looked up humanism. No, I'm not a humanist. I don't think humans are of the utmost importance. I think everything is of the utmost importance. There are no divisions between anything. Secularism, I'm not sure. The state shouldn't demand beliefs of people, but at the same time it's hard to have a state without implying some beliefs.
Ozymandyus
New Member
You are an atheist. The only reason you are not is because you have not properly defined atheist. You don't believe in any of the Gods of the major religions - therefore you are an atheist. You have created a new meaning for God for yourself which really seems to be something more like Zeitgeist or World Spirit or something to that effect... In any case, you are still a supernaturalist which makes you not someone I agree with at all - but that's just how atheists roll.Worldquest said:
If you really believe that you can change the world by your own faith in what will happen or your thoughts, I completely disagree. You can certainly change your view on the world by believing: but you are not affecting the world itself, as anyone near you that is not also caught up in your delusion could confirm. Now, being able to change your view is an incredibly powerful thing that I believe in strongly, but do not mistake that changing viewpoint and understanding for a real change in the world itself: that will only lead you to misunderstanding and delusions of grandeur.
RichardMNixon
New Member
Worldquest said:
1. How can you tell whether or not there is intent?
2. Karma has a lot of the same problems as synchronicity; how can you tell someone is misfortuned because of evils in their past life, or simply because the universe is a lifeless entity unconcerned with human suffering? Frankly it's worse in your position since you (presumably) don't believe in reincarnation. You "believe that I'm 100% responsible for everything that happens to me." Is that true of everyone else in the world also? So what did starving, crippled, children in Haiti do to precipitate their misfortune?
3. Secularism isn't the absence of beliefs, I believe coffee is delicious and free speech is a good thing. Secularism is the absence of religious belief. A secular state forms a social contract between its citizens, subject to reason, not the commands of some supposed god. A secular state can be reasoned with, changed, improved; not simply enforced on god's authority. Why does a state need god?
As for the rest of it, you still haven't answered Squawk's question of why you believe those things. What evidence led you to those beliefs?
Worldquest said:
Well, I'll just give you a couple reasons you might want to re asses that belief.
The first is the very apt observation that he who defends everything defends nothing. This quote was of course intended in the military sense that it doesn't matter how big your army is, if you don't concentrate it in one point you can never form of coherent defense and you end up wasting a lot of time, money and human lives.
The same can be said ideologically. Before you can logically take the position that everything is equally important, you first have to value the things that are going to make the greater ideology a possibility.
You are human, therefore you must value humanity a little bit more than everything in order to for it to be possible to value everything equally. Perhaps, not as you say 'the utmost importance' but any coherent philosophy has to have things which it values more highly than others for the simple fact that things are going to be contentious. The universe is a contentious place after all.
One of the most difficult things to justify moralistically is the right to exist in the first place. The trouble is, that if you think too hard about it, the world is an incredibly cruel place. This is probably why a lot of otherwise perfectly intelligent people turn to god, because they've sat down and considered in the true implications of their existence and discovered that they are monsters, simply for existing. Consider the insects you accidentally step on, the bacteria you consume in cheese, the animals slaughtered for food etc etc. No matter how veganistically you try to live, things are going to die for your right to live. One cannot subsist on rain water alone. The concept of God gives one license for this. It's all ok if something designed it that way isn't it? Then it's not really so cruel and besides, we're horrible sinners and need to be constantly reminded of that.
The point is, it's an incredibly cruel thing nature. The reason I throw myself in with the humanist side of reasoning is that humanity is the first example, or at the least, the current one, of a species who has the potential to do better than nature. It needn't be required that we breed animals and slaughter them for our own subsistence, we already have developed synthetic clothing materials that in many cases are superior to animal hides, we can, though it's a somewhat strenuous process, synthesize food from, if not none living, certainly none sentient or feeling tissue. We have the potential to create a world that, if not free of that natural cruelty, reduces it immeasurably to where we really could start to value all life as being of a more or less equal value. Right now, it's just hypocritical though. You can't live with yourself and truly believe that.
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Worldquest said:
Fixed it for you. That's all I'm saying.
I'm not sure what the point of all that was, but the point here is that all of them, even when only concepts, are part of the universe. Everything that exists is part of the universe, because the universe is literally 'all that exists'.
Again, I'm not really sure what you're attempting to demonstrate here.
Dunno, but if there is a deity, it almost certainly isn't any of those so far proposed by believers of any stripe. Most of them are trivial to refute.
There's a problem with that, and it goes to the heart of one of the main reasons that I don't believe in such an entity. I never did believe, but even given a broad-brush interpretation of god such as you propose, there's a real problem with it, and here's why.
And there's the problem. If the universe is existence, and entails all that exists, then god is a subset of the universe, and I can't think of any set of circumstances in which it would be anything other than logically absurd to posit something that is part of a larger whole being also the creator of that larger whole. It's ludicrous.
That's the same thing restated.
Yep. The problem here, of course, is that it can't be demonstrated that anything was ever created or brought into existence.
No, because not all things are concepts. Concepts are things which exist in the mind, while much of what is in the universe is not predicated on mind. Unless, of course, you are a solipsist. That's trivial to refute as well.
This is just misuse of the word concept. Not all things are concepts, although all things can be conceptualised.
This is word salad, and I'm still unsure how this addresses my previous points.
Still misusing the word. Many things exist that are not merely conceptual, because concepts are a product of mind, and there are plenty of entities in the universe that are not products of the mind, but exist independently of mind. Indeed, it isn't a given that mind is a necessary outcome. Certainly mind is one outcome of the universe, but whether and to what degree this is inevitable is unclear. Anybody managing to demonstrate rigorously that it was would be in line for a Nobel prize, I'm sure.
The only criterion would be that it existed in reality, rather than merely as a concept.
So, you're advocating some sort of pantheism then, rather than deism. If you wish to anthropomrphise the universe or apply some kind of personality to it, I have no problem with that. I think it's entirely unjustified, but you're welcome to it.
Bingo. Not only that, the cycle of equations is unjustified, because you're inserting an entirely unnecessary concept and attaching it to something that is manifest and which, moreover, we already have a perfectly serviceable name for, and further, a name that doesn't have all the baggage inherent in the word 'god'.
No, existence is what makes it manifest. Indeed, that's so tautological that it's almost circular. In fact, I would go as far as to say that that which is manifest is not conceptual, but manifest. That which is not manifest is merely conceptual. It's almost a digital state, except that, of course, that which is manifest can be conceptualised. That does not justify expressing that which is manifest as a concept, though.
Again, given that we have no justification for positing creation of any description, this cycle of equations falls on its face. If it could be demonstrated that the universe had a beginning, then you might be on slightly less shaky ground. Not by much, though since, as stated above, it could still not be demonstrated that it required a creator. Also, and as stated above, it still leaves the question of how a subset of existence could be responsible for the creation of that of which it was only a subset, while not actually existing. As soon as something exists, we have a universe. Further, if god is just a subset of the universe, then there's no justification for calling it god. The more you think about this, the more absurd it becomes to posit a deity.
BTW, just say the word and I'll explain why I use the word 'universe' the way I do, and why I don't use words like 'multiverse', or apply the word 'universe' to that which arose from the big bang. There's a big history of my usage here, and it pertains to the history of the word itself, and to the history of the usage of the word among cosmologists.
Worldquest
New Member
Hackenslash -
I think I understand the problem. When I think of god, I'm thinking of my own concept of god. It looks like when you think of god, you're thinking of gods in religions. Do you really think I believe in the gods in religions? Well I certainly don't believe in a god that is literally jealous, or that punishes, or acts like humans act.
I agree with you that it's absurd to think that god is part of the universe and simultaneously the creator of it. That's like saying a brick created the house. What I am saying however is that everything is one and that one thing was never created, it has always been. I hate quoting other people's words because I don't like to come across as though I can't think for myself but on this occasion I have to quote the late Bill Hicks:
"We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively".
In other words, there is nothing but the one thing. There is no creation in the way we use the word. We are god, the "creator".
Of course we can't point to something which "exists" only as potential, and then watch as it manifests into regular "existence". But we know that some things exist as nonmanifest (a square circle), and we know that some things exist as manifest (your house). We can also say that there is a "realm" of the nonmanifest as well as one of the manifest. We've never seen the realm of the nonmanifest but why would we? We live in the realm of the manifest.
All manifest things have their concept, thier "ness". If concepts exist in a mind, then whose mind? In other words if you discover something new that you would never have conceived of, was the concept of it ever in your mind? Does it's concept enter your mind upon discovering it? The concept of it always existed. You just discovered its manifestation and as a result, it's "ness". This is why I believe that I literally know everything. That doesn't mean that I've discovered everything I know, so please don't ak me anything about subjects that I don't "know" anything about.
Your awareness of the existence of something is your evidence that something is manifest. And you said :
existence is what makes it manifest =
what makes it manifest = existence =
Bringer of existence into the universe = existence =
Creator of the universe = universe =
God = existence
The creator of the universe = the universe
God = the universe
Ok that's cheeky, I know. Worth a shot.
Also you're saying that that which is manifest isn't conceptual, only manifest. But manifest things all still have their "ness", their essence. Without it, they can't manifest at all. You can conceive of an apple. It's "ness" hasn't gone away. In fact your knowledge of it's very manifestation is your evidence of it's "ness". How can anything exist without it's "ness"?
I think I understand the problem. When I think of god, I'm thinking of my own concept of god. It looks like when you think of god, you're thinking of gods in religions. Do you really think I believe in the gods in religions? Well I certainly don't believe in a god that is literally jealous, or that punishes, or acts like humans act.
I agree with you that it's absurd to think that god is part of the universe and simultaneously the creator of it. That's like saying a brick created the house. What I am saying however is that everything is one and that one thing was never created, it has always been. I hate quoting other people's words because I don't like to come across as though I can't think for myself but on this occasion I have to quote the late Bill Hicks:
"We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively".
In other words, there is nothing but the one thing. There is no creation in the way we use the word. We are god, the "creator".
Of course we can't point to something which "exists" only as potential, and then watch as it manifests into regular "existence". But we know that some things exist as nonmanifest (a square circle), and we know that some things exist as manifest (your house). We can also say that there is a "realm" of the nonmanifest as well as one of the manifest. We've never seen the realm of the nonmanifest but why would we? We live in the realm of the manifest.
All manifest things have their concept, thier "ness". If concepts exist in a mind, then whose mind? In other words if you discover something new that you would never have conceived of, was the concept of it ever in your mind? Does it's concept enter your mind upon discovering it? The concept of it always existed. You just discovered its manifestation and as a result, it's "ness". This is why I believe that I literally know everything. That doesn't mean that I've discovered everything I know, so please don't ak me anything about subjects that I don't "know" anything about.
Your awareness of the existence of something is your evidence that something is manifest. And you said :
existence is what makes it manifest =
what makes it manifest = existence =
Bringer of existence into the universe = existence =
Creator of the universe = universe =
God = existence
The creator of the universe = the universe
God = the universe
Ok that's cheeky, I know. Worth a shot.
Also you're saying that that which is manifest isn't conceptual, only manifest. But manifest things all still have their "ness", their essence. Without it, they can't manifest at all. You can conceive of an apple. It's "ness" hasn't gone away. In fact your knowledge of it's very manifestation is your evidence of it's "ness". How can anything exist without it's "ness"?
D
Deleted member 619
Guest
Worldquest said:
As is every other believer. Even within specific formulations of specific religions, you would be hard pressed to find two believers whose conception of god was the same.
No. I actually don't have any conception of god. I simply address the conceptions presented to me, on the very rare occasion when a believer can actually be pinned down to any sort of definition. This alone is rare, since most of the believers I've come across are very reticent with such definitions, possibly because as soon as they're defined, they are open to refutation. Indeed, I don't recall ever coming across a conception of god presented by a believer that I couldn't refute without breaking a sweat.
All of this raises an interesting point, at least with regard to theistic conceptions of god, namely that if there were such an entity, why can none of the believers actually agree on its attributes?
No because, as I stated, it seems you are presenting something more like a pantheist conception of a deity. This is probably the most difficult to pin down in rigorous terms, because it's such a nebulous conception. It doesn't make it any less unjustified, though.
Well of course, because that would be, and is, just silly.
Exactly.
I have no problem with that. I only have a problem with calling it god, because of all the baggage that comes along with the word. The word 'universe' has no such baggage, and is a rigorous formulation for all that exists. There is no need to go any further than that.
It's not often I find myself disagreeing with Bill Hicks, but this is pure woo. Incidentally, never be worried about quoting somebody else. It doesn't suggest for a second that you have no thoughts of your own. I often quote other people, simply because there are so many incisive and pithy statements that match what I believe. You will often see me quoting Occam or Laplace, simply because they summed up my thoughts in a very neat and decisive manner. That doesn't mean that my thoughts aren't my own. I assure you that I can and do think for myself, as some here will testify.
No. I can't accept that. We don't create anything. We are a product of, and contingent upon, existence.
Well, it's even worse than that. We can't even point to anything that manifests. We can only point to things which are already manifest. All we see in the universe is changes in state. No beginnings, no creation, no manifestation.
I definitely can't agree with that. No such concept as a square circle exists. All that does exist in this regard is a chain of words, but they don't actually relate to any concept, because concepts have to be logically consistent. What properties does this conceptual square circle have? What shape is it? Do you see the problem there? That cannot exist even as a concept.
Not entirely true. We also live in the realm of the conceptual, and those things are not manifest.
No, because 'ness', as you put it, is not a concept. Concepts are not properties. I think this is more a failure of language than anything, so I'll let this pass.
Pointless question. It exists in the mind of the conceiver.
Discovery is not something that applies to concepts. Discovery only applies to manifest entities and principles.
No, for the aforementioned reasons. Concept is a product of mind. The concept cannot exist without the mind. Also reference my previous point about discovery and concept.
To qualify that a little, it is of course possible to conceptualise something before its discovery, but that doesn't mean that the concept existed before the discovered entity or principle. Much of science proceeds along these lines, in that hypotheses, which are conceptualisations, are constructed and then tested for veracity. The fact that they are shown to be true demonstrates the point nicely. If the hypothesis is borne out by reality, then the principle or entity always existed, long before the concept was formulated. If it shown not to be in accord with reality, then it never existed as anything but a concept.
No, that's the Dunning-Kruger effect. :lol:
Well, it's a bit difficult to either ask you questions about subjects that you don't know anything about, or indeed to avoid doing so, since I have no idea of what you know and what you don't.
No. That it is manifest is the evidence. My awareness or not of it is neither here nor there. Note again my above comments about entities and principles existing before their conceptualisation.
It wasn't remotely worth a shot. Further, and much more importantly, I vehemently oppose any suggestion without supporting evidence that anything ever comes or is brought into existence. Again, all we observe is changes in state. This is true of quite literally everything in our cosmic expansion, and there is no justification for supposing that the same is not true of the instantiation of the cosmos. I would argue against anybody who suggested that those principles that apply within the cosmos necessarily apply to the cosmos, because that's trivial to refute as a fallacy of compositon, but I would also argue against anybody who insisted the reverse with no justification.
'Ness' (bloody awful usage, BTW) is not a concept, but pertains to property, which has nothing to do with concept. On the topic of the apple, I already stated categorically that you can conceptualise things that are manifest, but that doesn't render them conceptual. Conceptual entities exist only in the mind. So, your conceptual apple exists only in your mind, but apples are not inherently conceptual, but manifest. That is the distinction, and it's an important one.
Worldquest
New Member
I'm out of my depths, Hackenslash. You're making distinctions between things which would take me ages to look up and think about and decide if it's what I'm saying or if I mean something else. When I say out of my depths, what I mean is that we're talking in different languages here. I'm going to try again, and I'm going deliberately talk like a child where necessary. I don't mean that in a patronizing way, I'm just looking for another way to express myself. If I get any of it technically wrong, just try to get a feel for what I'm trying to say, and correct me as you see fit, in the sense of at least being aware of what I really mean. Just follow my words, and imagine what you would be feeling if they were your words and you meant them. It might help if you read it a couple of times and delibetarely try to brainwash yourself, just to get into my mindset. And try not to think too much while reading. Think of this like one of those zen exercises. Try to think with your right brain, whatever that means. I'm not going to try an explain myself on your terms, I just want you to get where my "woo" comes from. Think of this as an exercise in translation.
I exist. I'm aware that I exist. When I try to imagine not existing, it's impossible. When I try to imagine never having existed, it's impossible. When I try to imagine ceasing to exist, that's impossible too. If I exist, I exist absolutely. I exist, that's it, end of story, I just exist. My existence is absolute, without beginning or end. Existence is absolute. My awareness of my existence is my existence. I am awareness, I am my consciousness. I am, I just am.
The universe and everything in it exists. I'm aware that it exists, I am my consciousness, what I am aware of is what I am. Everything that I'm aware of is what I'm aware of, which is what I am.
There's no division. 1+1=1. Multiplication is division.
Existence is absolute. It has no beginning or end. I'm aware of this : If you take away existence, you're left with existence. So existence is absolute. I'm aware of this : If I cease, what's left is that I've ceased. So I can't cease. I'm aware of this : If I am something other than what I am, what's left is me being something other than what I am. So I just am. I'm everything. I am the only thing.
Things are what they are, they are not what they're not. If they were, what you'd have is things being what they're aren't. So everything is everything.
I'm aware that I never created anything. I have always been, and I've always been aware. I am (noun--->) aware. What I'm aware of is what I am and I am everything that I'm aware of. I am aware of everything. I was always aware and nothing is created. If I wasn't aware, I'd be aware that I wasn't aware. Something would be aware that I wasn't aware. Otherwise I wouldn't not be aware.
What doesn't exist is aware that it doesn't exist. Everything exists, everything is aware. I'm aware of this.
There is no nothingness. Just consciousness. Everything is consciousness. Existence is being conscious, existence is conscious. Everything exists.
I exist. I'm aware that I exist. When I try to imagine not existing, it's impossible. When I try to imagine never having existed, it's impossible. When I try to imagine ceasing to exist, that's impossible too. If I exist, I exist absolutely. I exist, that's it, end of story, I just exist. My existence is absolute, without beginning or end. Existence is absolute. My awareness of my existence is my existence. I am awareness, I am my consciousness. I am, I just am.
The universe and everything in it exists. I'm aware that it exists, I am my consciousness, what I am aware of is what I am. Everything that I'm aware of is what I'm aware of, which is what I am.
There's no division. 1+1=1. Multiplication is division.
Existence is absolute. It has no beginning or end. I'm aware of this : If you take away existence, you're left with existence. So existence is absolute. I'm aware of this : If I cease, what's left is that I've ceased. So I can't cease. I'm aware of this : If I am something other than what I am, what's left is me being something other than what I am. So I just am. I'm everything. I am the only thing.
Things are what they are, they are not what they're not. If they were, what you'd have is things being what they're aren't. So everything is everything.
I'm aware that I never created anything. I have always been, and I've always been aware. I am (noun--->) aware. What I'm aware of is what I am and I am everything that I'm aware of. I am aware of everything. I was always aware and nothing is created. If I wasn't aware, I'd be aware that I wasn't aware. Something would be aware that I wasn't aware. Otherwise I wouldn't not be aware.
What doesn't exist is aware that it doesn't exist. Everything exists, everything is aware. I'm aware of this.
There is no nothingness. Just consciousness. Everything is consciousness. Existence is being conscious, existence is conscious. Everything exists.
Ozymandyus
New Member
Talking like a child apparently sometimes yields thinking like one. Just because you cannot imagine nonexistence does not mean you have always existed and always will exist. Just because there was a time when people could not imagine that the earth circled the sun, does not mean the sun circled the earth. I can imagine ceasing to exist, and I can imagine a time before I existed. I am not sure why you are limited in such a way - but it doesn't change the fact that you have not always existed. In fact - what you think of as YOU right at this moment will be destroyed within a few more moments and something new will have taken its place - that's just a fact. Your self is constantly being recreated with access to new information and new neural pathways. The YOU of yesterday would have reacted differently than the YOU of today - it's not a singular thing that can be spoken of as some permanent form that has always existed.Worldquest said:
To claim your existence is some absolute eternal thing just because you have this feeling that you can't imagine the world without you is no more pertinent to reality than people who had a feeling that thunder was the anger of the Gods or any other ridiculous notion that people have held on to throughout the ages.
more talking like a child? This is nonsense - 'what I am aware of is what I am' - That is simply a ridiculous postulation that leads to all your other woo'ish thinking. Being aware of something does not make you that thing, that's just a romantic notion and a complete misunderstanding of the difference between ideas, imagination and reality.
And where do you derive this little gem from. Children do indeed spout this sort of nonsense but they don't really believe it, they are just testing possibilities until they compare those possibilities to reality and find the real answers to their questions and the why of the world. You seemingly have taken a giant step backward in your understanding somewhere and have lost your connection to the real world, sadly. I would go on talking about the rest of this post but it gets even more word salad blending together of completely meaningless concepts from here. Just because you can form a sentence using simple words does not make the sentence true. I don't mean to be insulting, but honestly asking for us to try to understand where you are coming from feels like an insult to thinking people everywhere.
Worldquest
New Member
Point taken, and no insult taken.
Why do you think I think in this way? I'm an adult, and here I am going on about 1+1=1.
I have to say that the actual thoughts behind my words are more sophisticated than the words themselves, and I know it sounds so stupid. The thoughts also are very powerful. And it's more than just thinking, it's how I feel. I genuinely think that thoughts are the servant of emotion / perception.
By the way, when you read my post, did you try hard to put yourself in my position and suspend everything you hold to be true, as well as your methods for determinign what you think is fact? The idea was to take you into my mindset, not necessarily to justify anything.
Why do you think I think in this way? I'm an adult, and here I am going on about 1+1=1.
I have to say that the actual thoughts behind my words are more sophisticated than the words themselves, and I know it sounds so stupid. The thoughts also are very powerful. And it's more than just thinking, it's how I feel. I genuinely think that thoughts are the servant of emotion / perception.
By the way, when you read my post, did you try hard to put yourself in my position and suspend everything you hold to be true, as well as your methods for determinign what you think is fact? The idea was to take you into my mindset, not necessarily to justify anything.
Ozymandyus
New Member
I have considered such things before, even as an adult, but have discarded them as useless trivialities that have no bearing on reality.Worldquest said:
I do not disagree that some subset of thoughts are the servant of emotion and perception. There are also a subset of thoughts that are the servants of emotion and logic, or the servants of imagination and perception, etc etc. These do not all have equal weight when we go to talk about the way things are in reality. Perception refers to reality, and emotion refers to reality, in different ways. The simple truth, whether you are willing to accept it or not, is that emotions, while powerful, are far more easily misled than perception or particularly logic. Any cursory glance at politics will show you this - people are led around by their emotions into voting for all sorts of things they later truly regret in reality. Logic can not be so easily misled: it is what it is and will be what it was. Perceptions may change, emotions may change, but logic will stay the same.
Now, I understand that it is your belief that perhaps reality is more fickle than logic, that it changes like emotions do. This is a statement that is proveable - but the truth is that TRUTH IS. Our feelings about what have happened may change, but the facts themselves do not. It is a simple and completely fundamental truth to the reality we find ourselves in, even though we all change constantly, the physical laws do not, the past does not, what has happened, has happened. We can change our attitude about it, which may change our outlook and what it means FOR US, but it does not change the reality. We can pretend like something never happened which can change the way we act: but there is still a clear chain of events that we can trace back to the thing that happened. Our perceptions and emotions are powerful but they can only change our own inner world and will not change reality (beyond how our own outlook changes our current actions and thus the subsequent reactions).
1+1 = 2. Pure and simple. That 2 may feel a bit more like 1 sometimes, maybe with me and my wife, or with you and your universe, but the truth value of the statement is clear. Analogies may help us understand things another way, but do not actually change reality.
Worldquest
New Member
Ozy -
I know what you mean and of course I accept that emotions are vulnerable to wishful thinking etc and they can be flimsy, I do know that.
But when you consider things like hypnosis, when a person is fully awake but under a "spell", which affects what they perceive, how they perceive it, what they omit from their perceptions, and their expectations...
...and when you consider something which I've heard about quantum physics, and I realise that I'm out of my depths so please correct me if I don't say this right, but I've read briefly something about the observer's expectations affecting what they see, how things behave...
When you take those into account, how do we know that we aren't under a "spell" already? It's just a different state of mind. What if on one level we are very much affected by what we expect, which results in what we see and even what we consider logical, and on another level, our emotions, hunches and intuitions are simply another part of us trying to tell us something else? And if we're "stuck" in one state of mind, it's surely perfectly reasonable to assume that what our intuition is telling us doesn't translate well, simply because we're in this state of mind?
I don't mind what your answer to that is but do you sort of get what i'm saying? I know I'm terrible at expressing myself.
I know what you mean and of course I accept that emotions are vulnerable to wishful thinking etc and they can be flimsy, I do know that.
But when you consider things like hypnosis, when a person is fully awake but under a "spell", which affects what they perceive, how they perceive it, what they omit from their perceptions, and their expectations...
...and when you consider something which I've heard about quantum physics, and I realise that I'm out of my depths so please correct me if I don't say this right, but I've read briefly something about the observer's expectations affecting what they see, how things behave...
When you take those into account, how do we know that we aren't under a "spell" already? It's just a different state of mind. What if on one level we are very much affected by what we expect, which results in what we see and even what we consider logical, and on another level, our emotions, hunches and intuitions are simply another part of us trying to tell us something else? And if we're "stuck" in one state of mind, it's surely perfectly reasonable to assume that what our intuition is telling us doesn't translate well, simply because we're in this state of mind?
I don't mind what your answer to that is but do you sort of get what i'm saying? I know I'm terrible at expressing myself.
Well, what you're describing is precisely the reason why empirical evidence is loathe to rely upon human experience, unless the experience is part of the experiment. If you were trying to chemically induce someone to feel happy, for instance, than a person claiming they feel happy when given a certain drug would be a piece of evidence, but it would have to be weighed against the testimony of many others, plus those being given placebos, etc.
In physics there's really no human intuition or observation left. It's all done by machines, because we know they can't lie to themselves.
In short, while I get what you're saying and one's intuition can have deep personal meaning, there's absolutely no reason to suppose that any of it is literally true for anyone besides yourself, so you should probably act accordingly, which, the very fact that you're discussing things is evidence enough of that. You tend to ask questions instead of stating 'facts' and while at times they are loaded questions you definitely have the right idea for moving towards greater understanding.
In physics there's really no human intuition or observation left. It's all done by machines, because we know they can't lie to themselves.
In short, while I get what you're saying and one's intuition can have deep personal meaning, there's absolutely no reason to suppose that any of it is literally true for anyone besides yourself, so you should probably act accordingly, which, the very fact that you're discussing things is evidence enough of that. You tend to ask questions instead of stating 'facts' and while at times they are loaded questions you definitely have the right idea for moving towards greater understanding.
Worldquest
New Member
You've got to ask questions. All kinds of questions. You have to question yourself, and you have to sometimes pose questions without necessarily trying to make a point. I love questions.
Can you specify, so we can debunk it - if it proceeds? Because if you've heard things like that Native Americans couldn't see Columbus' ships because they didn't expect them, or that your thoughts can make ice to take different forms that reflect your feelings, or something similar, I'd strongly recommend you to investigate a bit more your sources (this last example was originally an artwork taken out of context and presented by woo-sellers as scientific research, for instance; the relation with QM was farted by those very same people).
We don't know. Perhaps we are brains in vats. Or perhaps we're just a sociological experiment performed by aliens. Or perhaps a computer to discover the ultimate answer?
But, what do we gain with such assumptions? Nothing. In the other hand, Science has proven, once and once again, to work. And psychs and woo-sellers and quantum mysticists have failed once and once again.
We are already pretty affected by our expectations. Those are old news. Confirmation bias is an example of that. And they're studied by science.
Scientific knowledge is not ignoring emotions, intuition, hunches... They all have been widely studied. We've learnt about them enough to know that they aren't trustworthy. Psychologists, Psychiatrists and Neurologists continue studying them in the present, and learning how they work, how they arise, and how important they are.
Define "state of mind".
Worldquest
New Member
Maybe I need an education on quantum. If anyone has a good link I'd appreciate it. Nothing too lengthy though, I hate reading a million words when ten is all that's needed.
RichardMNixon
New Member
Worldquest said:
I know what you're thinking of, but you're confused. Quantum physics has nothing to do with what you want to observe; observing what you want to observe is just simple bias.
Quantum physics shows that the act of observing at all changes the outcome by collapsing the wave function. It's still a function of probability, not your desires.
See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
- Status