Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
Please support our sponsors.


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!

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

Re: Truth? [Re: Cosmic_Monkey]
    #972135 - 10/18/02 01:40 PM (19 years, 11 days ago)

Yes.

And read the section of the different meanings of the word 'perception' those meanings can be translated to the word 'appear'.

Cheers,


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Truth? [Re: trendal]
    #972143 - 10/18/02 01:45 PM (19 years, 11 days ago)

Good post.

perhaps a definition of "real" would be needed

Yes, real is what we experience through our senses when they are not altered by psychotropic substances, for the most part. The definition needs a little more refining than that but not much.

There is no faith element in thinking that we are experiencing reality. It is called knowing for a reason.

Cheers,


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,786
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
    #972213 - 10/18/02 02:31 PM (19 years, 11 days ago)

I'm sorry, I don't always do the best job in explaining my thoughts  :smirk:

What I meant was not that we have to have faith that we are experiencing reality, but that we must have faith that our senses are not deceiving us. If, under the influence of a drug, our senses can become so confused as I pointed out in my previous post then I think it safe to say that there is always the possibility that what we think we are experiencing is actually something added from within our conciousness as opposed to true sensory input. Some people even have this type of problem(?) without drugs. This being the case: how do we determine what is "real" and what is "hallucination"?

There may very well be a way of knowing for certain, but I do not know what it is. So I must have faith, at some point, that what I am "experiencing" is True, and not a figment of my imagination.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Truth? [Re: trendal]
    #974940 - 10/19/02 04:25 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

how do we determine what is "real" and what is "hallucination"?

Excellent question. Well, the pragmatist response is something like it works i.e., working under the assumption that what we normally perceive as ?real? is real allows us meet our goals, so it must be real. But just because a theory has proven useful does not mean that it is reality- (don?t mistake the map for the territory). Or, the social consensus response: Everybody else thinks these things exist in some objective reality, so they must! The fallacy of basing a theory solely on social consensus aside, I think the most powerful counter to this one is the possibility that because we are all very similar in design, i.e., humans perceive ?reality? in similar ways, we all can easily come to this conclusion; Our organisms are preprogrammed to attend to certain highlights in ?reality? and set them apart; We break down whatever the hell reality is into bits and pieces so we may churn it through our linear way of understanding- and boink, out comes a theory.

I do not have an answer to your question. But, I am beginning to think that the premise of the question itself is simply wrong. The distinction between objective and subjective reality- err.. discuss  :tongue:
 


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #974951 - 10/19/02 04:29 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

what we normally perceive as ?real? is real allows us meet our goals, so it must be real.

the social consensus response: Everybody else thinks these things exist in some objective reality, so they must!


You do realize that this is all we have, right?
You cannot become any LESS fallacious.

But, I am beginning to think that the premise of the question itself is simply wrong. The distinction between objective and subjective reality- err.. discuss

Objective reality is what the above two "fallacies" promote. Subjective reality is a blanket term for objective reality (see above) and everything else that we perceive.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Truth? [Re: Sclorch]
    #974968 - 10/19/02 04:42 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

You do realize that this is all we have, right?

I realize that it is all realists have to support the idea of a reality and things existing somewhere ?outside? of us.


You cannot become any LESS fallacious. :confused:


Objective reality is what the above two "fallacies" promote.

Yes
 


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #975011 - 10/19/02 05:18 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

Oh, LESS falacious. I read that as "more." That was weird.  Excuse my little bout with dyslexia. :grin: 


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #975030 - 10/19/02 05:36 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

But, I am beginning to think that the premise of the question itself is simply wrong. The distinction between objective and subjective reality- err.. discuss


Or maybe the faulty premise is the assumption of real things existing outside of us, in which case we are back to where we left off- that this is a premise axiomatic in the realist perspective that is unfalsifiable. However, consciousness research in the future might eventually clear this up.




--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleSclorch
Clyster

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/13/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #975041 - 10/19/02 05:42 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

However, consciousness research in the future might eventually clear this up.

Cross your fingers.
*crosses fingers*


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #975044 - 10/19/02 05:43 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

Or maybe the faulty premise is the assumption of real things existing outside of us...

Without that assumption, all that is left is solipsism, in which case nothing matters anyway and there is no point in you typing a response to this post.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Truth? [Re: Phred]
    #975088 - 10/19/02 06:11 PM (19 years, 10 days ago)

Well, I think this is where a very important idea expressed in a Buddhist analogy comes up: Don?t mistake the map for the territory. I have no problem with using the ?things? model and reaping all of the benefits of science that uses models which themselves look at the relationships between things. Such models are conducive to how humans comprehend. But I view it is a model, not any indication of what really is. Or I should actually say that I try to. Just like a theory of human motivation which says that self-esteem buffers death anxiety, I don?t think these constructs (self-esteem and death anxiety) are in and of themselves real things, they just serve a purpose and when measured in concert with other constructs happen to predict human behavior very well. The same goes for our general way of perceiving reality as things, another model- it is undeniably useful, but I think it is a bold statement to assume that this is how some unbiased, objective reality is.

Without that assumption, all that is left is solipsism,

Solipsism is what is left if, after seeing all external objects as not existing outside of you, you continue to acknowledge that you exist. This, I think, is a product of faulty reasoning. Why are you exempt from the rule that things don?t objectively exist?

in which case nothing matters anyway and there is no point in you typing a response to this post.

If you mean that there is then no ultimate morality in the world, I agree. I?m not going to try to brush this one off because it is something I have thought about for a while and have not yet come to a satisfactory conclusion. Buddhist monks, who I think strive to make this ontology their default way of apprehending reality, seem to think that compassion arises automatically, but I can?t think of why this would happen necessarily. On the other hand, however, I am not going to embrace realism just because of a need for meaning in the world.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Truth? [Re: Phred]
    #976550 - 10/20/02 10:35 AM (19 years, 9 days ago)

Without that assumption, all that is left is solipsism, in which case nothing matters anyway and there is no point in you typing a response to this post.

And if you are not into solipsism, objective reality is either predetermined or random, in which case nothing matters anyway and there is no point in you typing a response to this post. No matter how you approach it, in the end you're fucked.

Unless...



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Truth? [Re: Nomad]
    #976662 - 10/20/02 11:42 AM (19 years, 9 days ago)

And if you are not into solipsism, objective reality is either predetermined or random,

Objective reality in the context of non-living entities is largely pre-determined, with some elements of randomness at certain levels. This is not the case with living entities of a certain level of complexity. Volition is an attribute of many living entities, and volitional action is neither predetermined nor random. It is purposeful.

pinky



--------------------


Edited by pinksharkmark (10/20/02 12:04 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #976697 - 10/20/02 12:03 PM (19 years, 9 days ago)

buttonion writes:

The same goes for our general way of perceiving reality as things, another model- it is undeniably useful, but I think it is a bold statement to assume that this is how some unbiased, objective reality is.

But that IS how reality is, to humans. How an alien from alpha centauri might perceive a chunk of iron ore is irrelevant in the context of human experience. He might "see" things only in the spectrum of radio frequencies, for example. But both his sensory apparatus and our sensory apparatus deliver input consistent enough for each of us to discover the properties of that chunk of iron.

This nitpicking approach to the validity of the input from human organs of perception is useless gibberish. Of COURSE we would immediately be presented with more information about the nature of a given entity of we had the ability to directly perceive.... oh, I don't know... gravity waves or something, but that doesn't mean that the information provided through the instantaneous perceptions of our senses is faulty; it is just not complete.

Solipsism is what is left if, after seeing all external objects as not existing outside of you, you continue to acknowledge that you exist.

You cannot deny that you exist. Not even a solipsist can do that. That is precisely why solipsism is the irreducible minimum. If you do not trust the input of your senses, if you are convinced there is "nothing out there", then you are a solipsist.

If you mean that there is then no ultimate morality in the world, I agree.

No, that is not what I mean at all. What I mean is that if you are the only consciousness in existence, then none of your actions have any meaning. It is all just a dream to amuse yourself, so any action you choose to take is as meaningful (or meaningless) as any other action. Morality is therefore a null concept to a solipsist.

I am not going to embrace realism just because of a need for meaning in the world.

If you don't have an accurate enough grasp of reality, your continued survival as a living entity is in jeopardy. You don't NEED to know anything at all about objective reality unless your goal is to continue to live.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineNomad
Mad Robot

Registered: 04/30/02
Posts: 422
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
Re: Truth? [Re: Phred]
    #976821 - 10/20/02 01:04 PM (19 years, 9 days ago)

This is not the case with living entities of a certain level of complexity. Volition is an attribute of many living entities, and volitional action is neither predetermined nor random. It is purposeful.

If there is an objective universe, we can do the thought experiment of taking a snapshot of all the universes' parameters just before you wrote that post above. Now, let's get back into the snapshot and let the universe run its way again. Would you write again the exact post as above? If so, the universe is predetermined. If, on the other hand, your post would be different, then the universe is random. How would your post look like in a universe with "volition"?

I have nothing against your point of view if you admit that it is a useful belief. But you cannot claim that it is logical.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Truth? [Re: Phred]
    #976904 - 10/20/02 01:48 PM (19 years, 9 days ago)


But both his sensory apparatus and our sensory apparatus deliver input consistent enough for each of us to discover the properties of that chunk of iron.

This nitpicking approach to the validity of the input from human organs of perception is useless gibberish.

Of COURSE we would immediately be presented with more information about the nature of a given entity of we had the ability to directly perceive.... oh, I don't know... gravity waves or something, but that doesn't mean that the information provided through the instantaneous perceptions of our senses is faulty; it is just not complete.


Realists generally subscribe to the idea that there is perception (subjective reality) and then there is that which underlies our perception, some sort of unbiased, objective reality- what reality really is. It is upon this assumption that your comments are based- the very assumption in question- that regardless of what parts of objective reality a perceiving entity is attuned to, we are all experiencing the same objective reality.

To go back to where Mr. Mushrooms and I left off, I am not saying that I can prove (this flavor of Zen Buddhist) idealism, I am saying that there is no way you can prove realism, and thus reject idealism. If you have a way to prove that there are ?things? that actually exist outside of ?us?, through logic, I would be very interesting in reading it.


You cannot deny that you exist.

A claim that you cannot reject:
I don?t exist. The conception that I have of myself as a thing separate from all else is faulty. Further, the idea that there is an ?all else? is also faulty. However, to break down my phenomenological field into things is useful and I am going to continue to do that as long as I have to interact with others, plan for the future, and critically think- but I know that pragmatism and social consensus does not mean that this is how reality really is. The further I try to explain this idea, that less able I will be to use words and other ?things? to describe it- non-duality. Not the idea that everything is ?one,? because to conceive of ?one? you must see it against some background like some ethereal space- just non-duality. The whole idea of ?existence? is a man-made convention- something we tag our perceptions with because they appear to be static, apparently not changing relative to our perception of time.


You don't NEED to know anything at all about objective reality unless your goal is to continue to live.

I will stick with my perception of ?things? as a useful model and will still achieve the goal of continuing to live.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Truth? [Re: Nomad]
    #977534 - 10/20/02 07:05 PM (19 years, 9 days ago)

Nomad writes:

Now, let's get back into the snapshot and let the universe run its way again. Would you write again the exact post as above? If so, the universe is predetermined.

I would probably choose very slightly different wording, or I might choose to emphasize a word with bold type rather than capital letters. This is what happens if I goof up the first post and delete it by accident, for example. and have to retype it -- the replacement post conveys the same meaning, but the wording is not exactly identical. Therefore the universe is not predetermined.

If, on the other hand, your post would be different, then the universe is random.

Wrong. If the universe were random, my post might look like this: "Gack prot fine fribble, ujt komy plenter fiffdes ort?" But my posts don't look like that. Ever. They are NEVER random collections of symbols. They are ordered, comprehensible, and convey the meaning that I WANT them to convey.

How would your post look like in a universe with "volition"?

As it does.

I have nothing against your point of view if you admit that it is a useful belief. But you cannot claim that it is logical.

It is not merely useful, it is accurate. The actions you must take in order to respond to a post of mine are neither predetermined nor random. They are purposeful. They are under your control. You can choose to respond to me in Spanish, in gibberish, or in ebonics, or a combination of all three. You can even choose not to respond. There is no set of universal laws that FORCES you to respond in english for the first phrase, despues en espanol, y finalmente gack friddle gethy pervid -- yo, tru dat, nigga!

pinky



--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #977571 - 10/20/02 07:24 PM (19 years, 9 days ago)

buttonion writes:

If you have a way to prove that there are ?things? that actually exist outside of ?us?, through logic, I would be very interesting in reading it.

It is not necessary to use logic to prove the existence of entities outside of your mind. It can be done ostensively. As a matter of fact, that is the only way it CAN be done. I toss a pebble into your lap. You register its impact. What more do you need?

I don?t exist.

But you do. A non-existent entity doesn't have the capacity to make proclamations, even proclamations of a negative nature.

The conception that I have of myself as a thing separate from all else is faulty. Further, the idea that there is an ?all else? is also faulty.

If there is nothing "else", if all there is is you, then solipsism as a worldview is accurate. This still means that you exist. I may not exist, but you do.

However, to break down my phenomenological field into things is useful and I am going to continue to do that as long as I have to interact with others, plan for the future, and critically think...

But none of that is necessary if you are all there is. What "others" are there to interact with?

The whole idea of ?existence? is a man-made convention-

Not so. Existence exists, whether there are entities conscious of its existence or not.

... something we tag our perceptions with because they appear to be static, apparently not changing relative to our perception of time.

You've lost me. My perceptions are certainly not static. I observe the changes over time of the entities within range of my senses. Are you saying that to you the world is a still snapshot?

I will stick with my perception of ?things? as a useful model and will still achieve the goal of continuing to live.

If you are all there is, then no particular model is any more "useful" than any other model. If you are all there is, "useful" is a null concept.

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblebuttonion
Calmly Watching

Registered: 04/04/02
Posts: 303
Loc: Kansas
Re: Truth? [Re: Phred]
    #977917 - 10/20/02 09:58 PM (19 years, 9 days ago)

It is not necessary to use logic to prove the existence of entities outside of your mind. It can be done ostensively. As a matter of fact, that is the only way it CAN be done. I toss a pebble into your lap. You register its impact. What more do you need?

You have not ruled out solipsism as a plausible explanation here. No matter how useless you think this position is, it is still plausible. But even so, I do not subscribe to solipsism because I don?t think there is some ?I? that exists- I don?t think I am the only thing in the world and all perceptions are in my head. I do think it is useful to use ?I? as a concept, however, and will continue to use it without hypocrisy.


--------------------
Concepts which have been proved to be useful in ordering things easily acquire such an authority over us that we forget their human origins and accept them as invariable.- Albert Einstein


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 9 months
Re: Truth? [Re: buttonion]
    #978211 - 10/20/02 11:28 PM (19 years, 9 days ago)

I do not subscribe to solipsism because I don?t think there is some ?I? that exists-

Let me get this straight -- you don't think that you exist?

I do think it is useful to use ?I? as a concept, however, and will continue to use it without hypocrisy.

If you don't exist, who is it who thinks it is useful to use "I" as a concept? Are you being deliberately obtuse or am I just somehow missing the boat entirely here?

pinky


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract, Kratom Powder For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Official Truth Thread - No jokes please!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit 17,664 178 10/31/02 02:23 AM
by Strumpling
* Confusing creativity with perception.
( 1 2 3 all )
Phluck 5,138 59 09/30/03 04:02 AM
by fireworks_god
* *cough* EXISTENCE *hack*
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
buttonion 19,969 173 03/19/04 02:03 AM
by Frog
* True truths can be found
( 1 2 all )
cybrbeast 1,235 20 07/31/04 10:46 AM
by kaiowas
* True Truths
( 1 2 all )
Ravus 1,779 23 08/01/04 06:18 AM
by exclusive58
* Ultimate Truth or Ultimate Deception? Source 980 11 03/29/04 10:48 PM
by Shroomism
* Death & Time don't exist. Where God comes from...
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Shroomalicious 8,499 69 12/18/02 08:30 PM
by Strumpling
* Al Haq (The Truth)
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Zahid 6,388 60 08/24/02 05:17 PM
by Danimal

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum
15,396 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 17 queries.