Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 166 of 305 (393963)
04-08-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by StevieBoy
04-07-2007 10:22 AM


reality, deism and flat-earth beliefs
I found your original suggestion that I "admit your a Deist" intrusive.
Not what I said. I said admit reality ... then become a Deist as you take your own advice and follow it to it's logical conclusion: that "just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them."
Just to hit some high-spots:
christianity
hinduism
buddhism
Have all been around over 2000 years and all still exist and all have many followers around the world. Thus all these believers might be on to something, but the something they are onto is not the same. In fact there are no two independent religions that are have similarities except for a general belief in god(s).
Thus the only thing we can conclude from this -- if we take your precept that such belief is evidence -- is that god(s) exist but we do not know, can not know, what god(s) exist.
... and the comment was also made to see if you would re-evaluate your attitude ...
The comment was not my best post.
You did. I don't really expect (or care) others to become deists: to me religion is a personal path and no-one can tell what is right for you.
I hadn't even heard of Deism and ...
I am free to choose a Religion if I want.
And free to make that choice based on an incomplete evaluation of all the possible alternatives? The real question here is how do you (we) make these choices? How do we validate them?
Are you exploring how we can all agree on what knowledge fits into which areas?
Reality exists,
We (each) perceive parts of that reality,
Our perception of reality is influenced by what we know and believe, but
How can we validate our perception as being a valid representation of reality?
Science can only go so far. Philosophy can only go so far. Faith can only go so far. Plus the further we go from science (testable) and philosophy (logical) the more uncertain we must be about our conclusions.
What led you to make the comment that I was afraid?
The fact that you used the word heresy. Heresy is anything that contradicts dogma.
Are you saying both Heresy and Delusion are not reality? There is an important distinction between Heresy and Delusion that you may have overlooked. Delusion is fixed, false and in confrontation with fact. Heresy is opinion or belief or theories that are widely believed to be false but that could become truth, scientific fact or orthodox through popular belief. Hence heresy exists in the realm of reality if it is true knowledge.
I'd say that dogma (religious, philosophical, etc) is delusion whenever it is contradicted by facts. That dogma would brand any such facts as heresy (we've seen so many examples yes?), when what it really is amounts to fear of the new knowledge, the new facts, and the increase in knowledge that comes with it. Thus heresy can be true to reality when the dogma is false, and heresy is not then a measure of {reality\non-reality}. The problem is to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I reasoned that the knowledge of Faith is important for the advancement of the other realms of knowledge.
I don't see it is necessary to have faith to be able to do math, or logic, or to follow the scientific process to see how things work.
Perhaps you could tell me why you think the comment is illogical?
Can you tell me which of these logical structures is valid?
  • All fish have spiny tails
  • Guppies have spiny tails
  • Therefore guppies are fish
    or
    (B)
  • Most automobiles have pneumatic tires
  • Bicycles have pneumatic tires
  • Therefore bicycles are automobiles
    or
    (C)
  • Only foxes have red fur
  • Orangutans have red fur
  • Therefore orangutans are foxes
Just for fun.
Is this the same as general consensus? I agree that we can agree on what we can see through the telescope and what we find in the earth etc. For the most part we can agree. Although a friend of mine is colourblind and he thinks blue and green are the same colour. He takes it on faith that they are different. He may even believe everyone else is wrong.
I think of it more as a general compromise position than general consensus. Your friend (and one of mine, is your friend left-handed too?) takes a compromise position that blue and green are different (for my friend it is red and green) because of the evidence available to him. There are also women (related to colorblind men) that see 4 basic colors, and we are colorblind to them (as we are compared to birds and reptiles and ...). Your friend (and mine) can also run spectroscopic tests that can consistently distinguish one shade from the other even thought they cannot see the differences, so he can test those perceptions of others.
How do you account for things that are widely believed but are not in fact reality? For example supposing if the current state of belief was that the earth is flat? Or doesn't this matter because we are only representing reality?
It matters very much. The question is how do we distinguish a "flat-earth" belief from reality? What other beliefs fall into the "flat-earth" category? To me the biggest contender these days is the YEC belief in a young earth: it is falsified by the evidence just as much as the flat earth concept is falsified by the evidence.
In your mind what do each boundary line between the realms of knowledge and the unknown represent? Who determines what knowledge goes where? For example, the scientific community may decide when something becomes scientific fact and we can place this knowledge realm of science.
I don't see hard and fast boundaries, and I also think the circles can expand as time passes and we accumulate more knowledge and experience of reality into the concepts that we use to perceive reality.
This is an interesting debate but Razd I'm new here,
Welcome to the fray.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ,

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by StevieBoy, posted 04-07-2007 10:22 AM StevieBoy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by StevieBoy, posted 04-11-2007 11:11 AM RAZD has replied

StevieBoy
Junior Member (Idle past 6195 days)
Posts: 13
From: All over the place
Joined: 03-30-2007


Message 167 of 305 (394422)
04-11-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
04-08-2007 7:15 PM


Re: reality, deism and flat-earth beliefs
RAZD writes:
I said admit reality ... then become a Deist
Sorry about that I miss read it.
I can relate to Deism the most since I believe in God but as far as I can tell I do not believe in any established religions.
RAZD writes:
Thus the only thing we can conclude from this -- if we take your precept that such belief is evidence -- is that god(s) exist but we do not know, can not know, what god(s) exist.
That is largely what I believe. In the three Religion you list, the something they believe in are not the same, therefore there is not one God but many. Either there is one God or we all perceive God differently. We can only know our own God.
RAZD writes:
I don't see it is necessary to have faith to be able to do math, or logic, or to follow the scientific process to see how things work.
That is correct because that knowledge can easily be validated when it comes as knowledge from a third party. But what about the Einsteins of this world? They dream up ideas, take them on faith and then set out to prove their theories through reasoning.
RAZD writes:
which of these logical structures is valid?
I think C is the answer.
RAZD writes:
Welcome to the fray.
Cheers.
Edited by StevieBoy, : Clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2007 7:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 04-11-2007 6:11 PM StevieBoy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 168 of 305 (394486)
04-11-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by StevieBoy
04-11-2007 11:11 AM


Re: reality, deism and flat-earth beliefs
excellent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by StevieBoy, posted 04-11-2007 11:11 AM StevieBoy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 305 (394735)
04-12-2007 10:38 PM


physical reality and morality?
From Message 25
I am trying to drop it...
Razd:
What you assume is that an absolute morality applies. It does not. The example gave by Taz shows a relative morality applicable in each alternate universe. Just as it is a relative morality that people use in this universe, that allows people to change channels when they see ads for help organizations for starving children in 3rd world countries. We already -- in this one known universe -- have the situation you said couldn't happen?
Do you hear yourself Razd? Do you really hear yourself?
What you assume is that an absolute morality applies. It does not.
It does not? period?
You have just posited an 'absolute morality'. And your absolute is relative.
You talk about logic and expect it from me... but you exempt yourself?
As you said, morality exists or it does not. It cannot be both absolute and relative. Why is this so hard for some of you?
What would cause you to even attempt to escape this pivotal and logical certainty, at the expense of the tremendous value offered in the basis for your own understanding of anything?
This is in response to Rob's original comment:
Message 9
The problem with these theories is that they undermine the moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.
and
Message 16
The reasons for the moral implications are quite obvious as any moral scene that is legitimate for our universe is ultimately undone by the overlying reality of randomness of the whole.
With the implication by Rob that since his morality did exist that such universes could not. This would only work if there was some physical reality to morality such that it's existence would prevent multiple universes.
Morality is part of philosophy - the second circle in perceptions of reality - but it has no physical reality, and there is no absolute morality. Morality changes with perceptions of reality and philosophy - ergo it is subjective. And if it is subjective then it is also necessarily relative as subjective perceptions vary from individual to individual.
If a morality {philosophy} is based on a false understanding of reality it is invalid. It is not reality that is wrong, whatever that reality is, whether it involves multiple universes or dark stuffs or elastic\plastic constants.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : relative

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 12:46 AM RAZD has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 170 of 305 (394755)
04-13-2007 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
04-12-2007 10:38 PM


Re: physical reality and morality?
This really has nothing to do with multiple universes. So I am not rejecting multiple universes because it would do away with morality. I won't accuse you of creating a straw man... you misunderstod me.
Maybe there are multiple universes. If there are, morality would still be absolute in my opinion.
What I was driving at, was that mutiple universes can be (and have been) used to posit the notion that ultimately, reality is infinite in the manner of order and function of law. I am not saying anyone here has used this notion, but I know folks who have.
That being said, let me illustrate this another way so that we can dialog on it meaningfully.
When speaking of absolute moral truth, if you say that 'all truth is relative', does that statement include itself?
If you say yes, then that statement is also not always true. Which means that some truth is not relative. Which means the statement is false.
If you say no, then you are positing an absolute while denying that absolutes exist.
What am I missing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 10:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by ringo, posted 04-13-2007 2:50 AM Rob has replied
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 04-14-2007 8:38 AM Rob has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 171 of 305 (394768)
04-13-2007 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rob
04-13-2007 12:46 AM


Re: physical reality and morality?
Rob writes:
What am I missing?
Who is claiming that "all truth is relative"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 12:46 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 9:08 AM ringo has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 172 of 305 (394796)
04-13-2007 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by ringo
04-13-2007 2:50 AM


Re: physical reality and morality?
Ringo:
Who is claiming that "all truth is relative"?
Can you think of a truth that is absolute?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by ringo, posted 04-13-2007 2:50 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 04-13-2007 1:23 PM Rob has replied
 Message 222 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-18-2007 10:35 AM Rob has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 173 of 305 (394841)
04-13-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Rob
04-13-2007 9:08 AM


Re: physical reality and morality?
Rob writes:
Who is claiming that "all truth is relative"?
Can you think of a truth that is absolute?
That's not what I asked.
Your reasoning claimed that "all truth is relative" is invalid because "all" contradicts "relative". I'm asking: Who is using the word "all" besides you?
Doesn't your logic fall apart if the statement is "truth is relative"?
Edited by Ringo, : Spellink.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 9:08 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 10:41 PM ringo has replied
 Message 176 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 10:47 PM ringo has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 174 of 305 (394895)
04-13-2007 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ringo
04-13-2007 1:23 PM


Re: physical reality and morality?
Ringo:
I'm asking: Who is using the word "all" besides you?
And I want to make sure that you are not saying 'all truth is relative' implicitly. I contend that you and others are saying it in your assumptions. That is why I asked for you to give me a truth that is not relative. If you do not believe (consciously or subconsiously) that all truth is relative, then it should not be difficult for you to think of one. But I believe you do. And I see it implied again and again in so many comments here at EVC. And when I call these asumptions into question (irrespective of subject), I am disregarded as off topic. It is a continuing phenomenon.
Let's dialog on this please...
Can you demonstrate an absolute to prove to me you do not believe 'all truth is relative'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 04-13-2007 1:23 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 04-13-2007 10:47 PM Rob has replied
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 04-14-2007 12:20 AM Rob has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 175 of 305 (394896)
04-13-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Rob
04-13-2007 10:41 PM


Rob's nonsense on Absolutes yet again. Sheesh.
It is absolutely true that I like strawberry ice cream.
It is absolutely true that I am over 21 years old.
It is absolutely true I made an omelet for lunch.
It is absolutely true I had a V-8 tonight.
No one has denied that there are absolutes. What has been said is that no one has been able to show that there is absolute morality or to give an example of an absolute moral that stood up to examination.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 10:41 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 11:14 PM jar has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 176 of 305 (394897)
04-13-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by ringo
04-13-2007 1:23 PM


Re: physical reality and morality?
Ringo:
Doesn't your logic fall apart if the statement is "truth is relative"?
The statemeent itself is illogical. I have never suggested such a thing. The only logical and realistic statement can be, 'Some truth is absolute.' (that in itself is an absolute truth).
If you want to affirm relativism it can be done in the following manner: 'Some truths are relative'.
Do we agree upon that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by ringo, posted 04-13-2007 1:23 PM ringo has not replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 177 of 305 (394901)
04-13-2007 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
04-13-2007 10:47 PM


Finally... I get to teach jar about absolutes
jar:
It is absolutely true that I like strawberry ice cream.
It is absolutely true that I am over 21 years old.
It is absolutely true I made an omelet for lunch.
It is absolutely true I had a V-8 tonight.
None of these are absolutely true... they are relatively true in their respective time. You used the words years, lunch, and tonight. You have liked strawberry icecream only since you have tried it. Before that, it was not your favorite.
An absolute is true at all times, and is not relative to time. Otherwise it is not absolute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 04-13-2007 10:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 04-13-2007 11:26 PM Rob has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 178 of 305 (394902)
04-13-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Rob
04-13-2007 11:14 PM


Re: Finally... I get to teach jar about absolutes
Rob, it is absolutely true that it is pointless trying to hold a discussion with you.
The readers can look at the thread and decide whether or not what I said were actually absolutes.
The key point is that No One has so far been able to show any absolute morals or that there is any absolute morality.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 11:14 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 11:37 PM jar has replied

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 179 of 305 (394908)
04-13-2007 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by jar
04-13-2007 11:26 PM


Re: Finally... I get to teach jar about absolutes
jar
The readers can look at the thread and decide whether or not what I said were actually absolutes.
Are you implying that the readers of this thread can interpret reality and the meaning of words for themselves?
If so, will you allow me the same liberty?
Do you even know what I am saying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by jar, posted 04-13-2007 11:26 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 04-13-2007 11:43 PM Rob has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 180 of 305 (394910)
04-13-2007 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Rob
04-13-2007 11:37 PM


Re: Finally... I get to teach jar about absolutes
Are you implying that the readers of this thread can interpret reality and the meaning of words for themselves?
No, I said nothing about interpreting reality.
Yes, words have different meanings based on language, culture, era and context.
If so, will you allow me the same liberty?
Do you even know what I am saying?
I have no idea what you are saying.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 11:37 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 11:47 PM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024