Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Belief thesis of no reality
    #6393248 -

In pondering my own concept of reality I've realized that there is no apparent reality other than our apparent logic in explaining how things are. Such as math and science used as a models to allow us to observe our dimensions which allow us to create and define our reality with technologies and certain ecological facts. Yes there is parameters that give us an (idea) of reality. Also certain historical facts would also uncover misconceptions formed out of myths that have been passed from generation to generation. These historical findings can also give us a more understanding of our miss conceptions. For me if the story comes as something shakable, and something I can't pinpoint down with science or logic it is only rational that I'd be skeptical until further evidence is revealed. But skepticism isn't about self-empowerment I guess to some.

No reality

Well going onto belief sets. I've realized once you left the logical parameters of science and math you are now opening up a new can of worms. My beliefs is only a perception of reality based on those beliefs, not reality itself. Even my conception of logical and rational reality is a belief in itself and is not a direct reflection of reality. Why? Because like logic, we use conceptual tool or models that are fallible and are somewhat still limiting. No one can really pinpoint reality with a single mind, to understand reality I think is to deny it to a certain degree. As soon as you label, package it and pinpoint it down, you fall under a certain belief set that isn't totally reflected as an objective reality. Certain labels start to form as a result, such as neo conservative, or liberal, or whatever label you want for your apparent belief patterns. Some may rave about being logical and objective, and allow ourselves to be free from past misconceptions to think for ourselves and to form rational beliefs as a better means to define navigate our reality. True. (But really your still basing your (level of logic) to the true logic that may exist as a bigger dimension that limits our scope). Our reality was made intentionally fallible. Even my expressing my attempt to finding a clear reality will be scoffed for obvious reasons, as for my limited back ground and baseless arguments. But anyways this is my feeble attempt to say that (your) search is in vain and absolute reality does not exist.

I've explored all the major religions, and even taken a few hook line and sinker. I've also casted all religions to the side, being able to dictate my own conception of reality, but really I find the notion of no reality beyond the apparent obvious. Well this is just a thesis, any oversites that some may wish to add such as ideas, on this twist such as: god, Tao, nibbana, or absolute reality, be free to add input. peace

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief thesis of no reality [Re: capliberty]
    #6393625 -

It's a good thesis and one that a lot of philosophers have explored. There is no way we can know the "noumena" of objects, or objects as they exist unto themselves. Human experience is perception. Our idea of the world is just a picture in our mind, taken from one angle: the human one. We don't even know how accurate that picture is. Our minds are far from perfect. The world as it is could be absolutely nothing like the world we see. So our knowledge of the world is based entirely in perception and the conlcusions we draw from it. We may think that by reasonig our experience, we can have a degree of assurance that our perception has some consistency with indicating it is at least somehat correlative. Yet even our logic is a form of perception and just as fallible.

Then when we look at human devices and dealings, concepts we bring into existence, we have to realise that those concepts have no noumena. They exist only within our minds. Politics, religion, lifestiles. Even ethics. Concepts that we experience are entirely our creation. They may be invoked by our experiences of the world. If we see a village engulfed by a mudslide we might expereince tragedy. But the mudslide isn't tragedy. They way our perception of it affects us is the tragedy. Then concepts in our mind such as justice or right/wrong may be a basis for how we physically interact in the world, but the reality of any action is not inherently right or wrong. If a human being pulls the trigger of a firearm and kills another human, that action in a world without perception is not right or wrong, it just is. It's wrong within our cohesive perception, yet nowhere else in the universe.



Quote:
But really your still basing your (level of logic) to the true logic that may exist as a bigger dimension that limits our scope




What would you define as "true logic"? If there is a perspective that is not subject to fallicies of perception, what need has he for logic? Without fallible perception, the world would appear exactly as it is and that would negate the need for using logic to understand it. There you see logic is just another sensory device, a human way of perceiving things.


So in summary:

- "Reality" only pertains to objects that can be said to exist free of perception. This excludes all human perception and experience.

- Even our logic is a form of perception, it's a sensory mechanism of a biological mind.

- The search for "truth" takes place within human experience and it's value is determined by our experience. Our perception of "reality" is just that, a perception.

Edited by donkers5257 (12/21/06 10:56 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief thesis of no reality [Re: donkers5257]
    #6393850 -

Your second paragraph illustrates my quote, and comparing the two you would see their exists a (truer) logic than the single minded perceptions, for example in which we don't bother to separate our personal emotions from that of perception of morality and the perception of a large scale truth of the world in general.

I would say that in conclusion that if you say

Quote:
what need has he for logic



then you wouldn't be able to see conclusions that you made in seeing the wider spectrum. You used a (level of logic) to deemphasis morality on individual level, to deemphasis logic as a clear means to synthesize our perceptions to clearly, obtain an all encompassing reality. You basically are drawing all your inferences on a level of logic. Logic does help define our scope on reality, but my view is that it only goes so far, being the base medium, it would unravel alot of misconceptions, but it would also make you far more delusional to think that there is any absolutes in it for the fact that you can't deduct everything, its impossible and so your working from a blind filter, as some one on the lower order. Now I'm just babbling....

Edited by capliberty (12/21/06 12:22 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief thesis of no reality [Re: capliberty]
    #6395003 -

Popper says that genuine knowledge in science comes from the falsification of hypotheses or theories. Basically, hypotheses, theories and laws are propositions to be tested by experience, and can only truly verify that they are false (by experience). He also says that these hypotheses must be "inter-subjectively testable."

I like how he looks at science. The most profound things that science proclaims, can never be verified to be true, only false. As with any hypothesis, any one not determined to be false is a good working hypothesis.*

The implication, with respect to "how" scientific hypotheses are constructed, is that it is a creative and therefore irrational act. The scientists responsible for the most profound leaps forward are often cited as the most creative ones. One way to think of it is related to a new technique that will be used to encode and secure data: negative knowledge. I probably have the terminology wrong.

The idea is that since you can demonstrate propositions to be false by testing hypotheses then you can also make statements about the unknowns. You can still draw conclusions but only by proposing any number of statements which could end up being false. The hypothesis you generate has metaphorical implications. They basically carry the "meaning" of a scientific statement (i.e. think Newtonian physics vs. Quantum physics).


* Provided it still meets Popper's idea of inter-subjective testability: that, in principle, the general statement can be demonstrated to be false by experience.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief thesis of no reality [Re: Chemiker]
    #6396297 -

Quote:
then you wouldn't be able to see conclusions that you made in seeing the wider spectrum. You used a (level of logic) to deemphasis morality on individual level, to deemphasis logic as a clear means to synthesize our perceptions to clearly, obtain an all encompassing reality. You basically are drawing all your inferences on a level of logic. Logic does help define our scope on reality, but my view is that it only goes so far, being the base medium, it would unravel alot of misconceptions, but it would also make you far more delusional to think that there is any absolutes in it for the fact that you can't deduct everything...


The point I was getting at is that logic is a human condition. Reason is yet another aspect of the way we must view the world in order to fit the pieces of the puzzle together to get a slightly better picture. We have very limited senses. And limited capacity for understanding. I was trying to back up your claims of no reality in our preception by pointing out that even our best logic is still a human facility like any other. Even when we perform mathematics and logic matrices, we're still using our human logic. When we consider the statement "2+2=4", what we actually experience is a representation of that knowledge as rendered by human perception, not the object of knowledge itself.

Yes, I see the problem of USING human logic to arrive at the absolute conclusion that human logic is flawed and cannot be trusted. And yes I see the problem with saying, by humanan logic, that absolute truths exist yet we can never know them. But what this is, in actuallity, is the application of the principle I just described: We use our perception to form the most likely picture, and more often than not, it is reinforced by further experience. But still we only have represntation of truth and not the truth itself. Am I saying abandon logic? No. I'm simply agreeing with you that there is no truth within the realm of a mortal vantage point and thus all perception, especially peception of objects within humanity like religion, is never an embodiment of truth and we should accept such. People would have a much easier time getting along if they all started from that viewpoint and accepted that their human-contrived beliefs are no more verifiable than anyone else's, and then work for cohesion and tollerance rather than the proliferation of their specific viewpoint on the basis that it is right above all others.






Quote:
I like how he looks at science. The most profound things that science proclaims, can never be verified to be true, only false. As with any hypothesis, any one not determined to be false is a good working hypothesis.*
....

The idea is that since you can demonstrate propositions to be false by testing hypotheses then you can also make statements about the unknowns. You can still draw conclusions but only by proposing any number of statements which could end up being false. The hypothesis you generate has metaphorical implications. They basically carry the "meaning" of a scientific statement (i.e. think Newtonian physics vs. Quantum physics).


That's an intelligent way to go about it but still I don't see how Popper can expect that any observation can be reliably proven as false. I don't how under critical basis of knowledge a hypothesis can be proven as false. Could you provide an example he uses?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief thesis of no reality [Re: donkers5257]
    #6396375 -

i can't wrap my mind around existence, but I try and it snaps back.
i will keep trying, but i don't demand closure on this open question.



--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief thesis of no reality [Re: donkers5257]
    #6397262 -

donkers5257 said:
I don't see how Popper can expect that any observation can be reliably proven as false.

He isn't saying that any observation is false. Not at all. He's saying that observations can allow one to conclude that a proposition is false, as long as the observation is not in dispute. That is, scientists propose hypotheses, which as a consequence forbid certain experiences from being possible. If a 'prohibited experience' is impossible according to a hypothesis, and it is expeienced, then that hypothesis must be wrong.

I don't how under critical basis of knowledge a hypothesis can be proven as false. Could you provide an example he uses?

It is false if it can be demonstrated false, by experience. That is, the proposition must not only be testable, it must be inter-subjectively testable. If a propisition (such as a law of nature) has the logical consequence of forbidding certain experiences, then it can be demonstrated false by experience.

It can't be airtight, but he takes the understood principle that we're supposed to include everyoen's experience, so anything we propose has to be, in principle, testable by others. Popper argues that this is the most important part of science: the methodology.

I like the emphasis on experience. There isn't any separation of experience and "something out there" as a fundamental principle of science, but we do phrase our hypotheses in such a manner. Nonetheless, whether or not a hypothesis ends up being a true universal law (which can never verify) or the accidental result of certain observations isn't something we can know. What we can know, however, is that someone has experienced that it is wrong, because they have experienced something prohibited by that statement.

Again, the easiest way to think of it is this way. A law of nature forbids certain things from occuring, and therefore it forbids us from experiencing them. In order to test a hypothesis, one must attempt to make the forbidden occurence happen. Once they are experienced, and can be repeated, they can be demontrated to be wrong to everyone by experience. Basically, we can't know that a hypothesis is right. It's asymmetrical: we can only ever know that they're wrong.

Edited by Chemiker (12/22/06 03:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Belief thesis of no reality [Re: redgreenvines]
    #6397285 -

I did leave out (experience) as a way to understand our reality, I've been caught up in the more abstract mental side of it. Actions tell you different side to it all then actual mental fabrications. The mental fabrication may guide your actions and thus create a perception of reality unique to you. What brought on my original post was due to an experience, I basically felt that I can dictate and define my reality, and incorporate belief sets at will, but each belief set has its own (embodiment), assemblage points is maybe what I'm talking about, each religion has its absolutes, just like math within its existence of its own framework, has absolutes, these absolutes are useful like math within its own frame work, but just like math they have there owned flawed disposition and thus these absolutes may blind you to a truer perception.

Thus rendering you to a flawed reality, so people try to make variability out of the absolutes, but then you lose its usefulness, people who usually have closure with their belief sets, have an aspect of power because they have made some absolutes, but yet still live a flawed reality due to their inflexibility, But really I made perception of reality as an absolute and thus made my experience a flawed reality IMO, I wasn't happy with it, so that was what spurred on this post, of no reality, I think seeing reality with more emphasized (variablity), that seems to be useful theme these days, although that will render me as anarchist eventually though, as I'll have complete variability on morality issues, and varability on belief sets could make things confusing, ultimatly you define your own parameters again, because certain probability factors will reveal that certain courses are less desirable on a individual level thus influencing your encompusing prospectives,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* my belief about reality question_for_joo 788 12 09/11/05 02:08 PM
by IgnatiusJReilly
* Adopting Beliefs
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 2,822 22 03/13/05 03:06 PM
by egghead1
* Reality vs. the mushroom
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 AbstractSoul 10,957 64 02/18/02 03:36 PM
by AbstractSoul
* human centric belief systems.
( 1 2 all )		 truekimbo2 2,395 22 05/03/04 07:31 PM
by ParabolaChair
* The nature of self-serving beliefs
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 7,715 28 10/13/02 12:12 AM
by johnnyfive
* frustration of alternate realities... djchilxxn 1,311 11 01/24/02 06:22 PM
by sunconscious
* zalu the beliefe in life JameZTheNewbie 971 10 01/14/04 07:13 PM
by Renegade8
* controlling reality question
( 1 2 all )		 kaiowas 4,041 36 08/12/04 03:39 PM
by deff

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,381 topic views. 1 members, 233 guests and 77 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.022 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 14 queries.