Woo Denial

[evo]

Can't reality and what appears to be often be totally different things?

You have to work out the answer to that your self.

I'm sure I'll regret this,but my answer to that question is :"ultimately,no"

 

[Disco08]

I'm probably not looking at it deeply enough but I can think of a lot of examples of appearances deceiving reality. I know I often perceive things which have turned out to have no basis in reality whatsoever.

 

[Djevv]

It is not 'begging the queestion fallacy if I've made an argument for it--which I have in numerous previous posts--it is a claim

Just a little reading on the net reveals a multitude of views on this topic. The argument still goes on. Nobody knows if the universe is really fully determined due to our inability to measure everything accurately. You just think it 'ought' to be able to be fully determined, that doesn't make it so.

With the emphasis on implies.

So the argument is fallacious. Howso?

I'm aware it 'seems' like we have free-will and it would be nice if we did.But logic and science indicates that we don't.So I have to go where it takes me.I'd prefer if I had free-will too,doesn't make it true however.

above

Pantera raised a good point.Where,assuming free-will exists, is the demarcating line in the animal world?

Do dolphins have it?

Do monkeys?

Do Jelly fish?

Does algae?

If not,why not?

It seems to me dolphins have a will---is it free?

The more complex a living thing is the more likely it is to have choices to make I suppose. Why is this relevant?

 

[evo]

I'm probably not looking at it deeply enough but I can think of a lot of examples of appearances deceiving reality. I know I often perceive things which have turned out to have no basis in reality whatsoever.

Right.So then it is time to examine what you mean by 'reality'. You say on second thought it turned out not to be reality.But what was the 'gold standard' that made you decide the first appearance wasn't true?

-Why is the subsequent realisation not an appearance also?

-What is empirical science if not yet another appearance?

-Who is the final arbiter,if not you?

I'm not trying to appear mystical.If you want to examine what is "real" you have to look at all your assumptions;and it can often be counter intuitive. Particular if you are working,as most people are ,on the assumption that there is some objective reality just waiting to be discovered,"out there".

 

[evo]

Just a little reading on the net reveals a multitude of views on this topic. The argument still goes on. Nobody knows if the universe is really fully determined due to our inability to measure everything accurately. You just think it 'ought' to be able to be fully determined, that doesn't make it so.

Yeah definately.Belief in free will is one of the most common beliefs of all,even amongst agnostics and atheists. It seems intuitively correct.There is heaps of controversy.Even in philosophy.

The more complex a living thing is the more likely it is to have choices to make I suppose. Why is this relevant?

It seems totally relevant to me.

We are trying to examine the claim that a 'soul' exists.So if we can narrow down what does and doesn't have one,it may help to examine what 'it' is.Don't you think.

Can we define something as having a soul if it has the "ability to make a choice"?

 

[Disco08]

Particular if you are working,as most people are ,on the assumption that there is some objective reality just waiting to be discovered,"out there".

Yeah, I'm definitely working on that assumption, although not so much on the 'waiting to be discovered' part. Creature's limitations in observing reality will likely always exist but IMO things are as they are.

Right.So then it is time to examine what you mean by 'reality'. You say on second thought it turned out not to be reality.But what was the 'gold standard' that made you decide the first appearance wasn't true?

A completely pared down example is say yesterday out for a walk I saw a snake but it turned out to be an old bike tyre tube when I walked past it today.

-Why is the subsequent realisation not an appearance also?

I think by any reasonable definition the thing that appeared to be a snake yesterday is indeed a tyre tube.

-What is empirical science if not yet another appearance?

-Who is the final arbiter,if not you?

It seems to me that these questions are invoking all reality as appearances only. This doesn't make sense to me because the same object has appeared to be two different things to me - surely the reality of the situation is that it can only be one (and maybe none) of them.

 

[evo]

Yeah, I'm definitely working on that assumption, although not so much on the 'waiting to be discovered' part. Creature's limitations in observing reality will likely always exist but IMO things are as they are.

Right,but what does "things are as they are" mean to you?

What is this 'reality' beyond our limitations?How would one know if they ever eventually observed it?Maybe that observation wasn't the "real" reality also.Surely.

A completely pared down example is say yesterday out for a walk I saw a snake but it turned out to be an old bike tyre tube when I walked past it today.

Ok but what if you are out walking tommorrow and on even closer inspection it is a black piece of cloth.What is the reality of the situation?

The bike tube was real yesterday,but not today?What can we say existed?

I think by any reasonable definition the thing that appeared to be a snake yesterday is indeed a tyre tube.

But the only arbiter all along was you;true?

When are you difinitively right?When do you observe tyhe 'real' thing.Yesterday,today,tommorrow,ever?

It seems to me that these questions are invoking all reality as appearances only. This doesn't make sense to me because the same object has appeared to be two different things to me - surely the reality of the situation is that it can only be one (and maybe none) of them.

That is because you are working on the ( seemingly natural) assumption that there is an objective thing just waiting to be discovered.Elusive.

But already you having second thoughts aboput that (rightly).You have speculated it could've been none of the above.
ie it may not be a snake or a tube.

So what is it? What is the "thing-in-itself"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

 

[1eyedtiger]

We are trying to examine the claim that a 'soul' exists.So if we can narrow down what does and doesn't have one,it may help to examine what 'it' is.Don't you think.

Can we define something as having a soul if it has the "ability to make a choice"?

I came across this book a couple of years ago. whether or not it has any merit is up to each individual and I hope that all that read it gain from it somehow.

http://www.amazon.com/Souls-Journey-Classics-Personal-Development/dp/0722532911/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232361404&sr=1-1

One of the ideas that the book presents is that every living thing contains a soul or part thereof. The soul moves up into higher levels of the animal kingdom through reincarnations gradually merging with other parts of itself until it finally reaches the stage of unity in a human being. This being the first level where the soul is whole and gains a sense of itself as an individual.
Later parts of the book became slightly vague at first reading. I'll probably read it again sometime.

 

[Disco08]

Right,but what does "things are as they are" mean to you?

What is this 'reality' beyond our limitations?How would one know if they every eventually observed it?Maybe that observation wasn't the "real" reality also.Surely.

Agreed. As I said, creatures will always have a limited ability to grasp reality because of flaws in their powers of observation and also a lack of understanding exactly what it is they are observing.

However, when taking 'observation' out of the equation, I'm certain that there is one 'correct answer' so to speak which is true reality. Much like the sound of a tree falling in the woods, I don't think this reality needs to be observed to exist.

Ok but what if you are out walking tommorrow and on even closer inspection it is a black piece of cloth.What is the reality of the situation?

That for two days running things were not as they appeared, consequently reality differed from those appearances.

But the only arbiter all along was you;true?

When are you difinitively right?When do you observe tyhe 'real' thing.

True, I'm possibly the only person to have seen it. How many people need to see it or how many tests need to be performed on a tyre tube to determine that it is in fact what it appears to be?

That is because you are working on the ( seemingly natural) assumption that there is an objective thing just waiting to be observed.

But already you having second thoughts aboput that (rightly).You have speculated it could've been none of the above.
ie it may not be a snake or a tube.

So what is it? What is the "thing-in-itself"

It has to be something though, right? Even if it's actually nothing but an illusion, it's still something. Even if I can't accurately identify it isn't the reality of the situation that it has to be something, and therefore the implication is that it has an objective reality?

 

[evo]

However, when taking 'observation' out of the equation, I'm certain that there is one 'correct answer' so to speak which is true reality.

Yes,and I'm endeavouring to get you to re-examine that certainty.How could you be so certain of that?When was this time you peeked outside your observations to apprehend the "real reality"

If you have seen the Matrix movie....when was the time you were in the 'machine world' looking at those poor saps in the deluded world?Or if you have read Plato--when were you outside the cave and saw what was "really real"

Much like the sound of a tree falling in the woods, I don't think this reality needs to be observed to exist.

Yes,bu why not?What can existence mean if not "that which appears to us"

Give me a definition you think is preferable to mine.

That for two days running things were not as they appeared, consequently reality differed from those appearances.

A sentence like that used to make sense to me now it doesn't.

True, I'm possibly the only person to have seen it. How many people need to see it or how many tests need to be performed on a tyre tube to determine that it is in fact what it appears to be?

That is the point.No matter how many people do tests on that tube it will still be an appearance to a humans. No?
All that you will really acheived in getting others to confirm it is a tube is to confirm it with consensus reality.

Small beans I reckon.
What happens if the next day it "really" looks a snake again? ;D

It has to be something though, right?

If it appears to be something,then it is.

Even if it's actually nothing but an illusion, it's still something

.
Yep.Thats my line

Even if I can't accurately identify it isn't the reality of the situation that it has to be something, and therefore the implication is that it has an objective reality?

No


This is not an ideal explanation but it is not a bad start.Give you something to consider anyway.Try and approach it with no preconceptions about "obejective realities".Make like Descartes,assume nothing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WApNIX-ZlXE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD1N8ZTi2EA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrkqC-xlf-Q&feature=related

 

[1eyedtiger]

What can existence mean if not "that which appears to us"

Reality to the individual is their point of view. An individual's point of view may not be able to witness everything that there is but as far as the universe is concerned, everything there is, exists. An individual's point of view is often flawed but that shouldn't take anything away from reality.

For example, consider the possibility of an intelligent alien race out there somewhere millions of light years away, at a similar level of technical advancement as ours and that they share the opinion of some that something can only exist if it has been observed. Now, despite the fact that they wouldn't have observed us, we still exist. Maybe not in their point of view, but nevertheless,we still exist.

 

[Disco08]

Yes,and I'm endeavouring to get you to re-examine that certainty.How could you be so certain of that?When was this time you peeked outside your observations to apprehend the "real reality"

If you have seen the Matrix movie....when was the time you were in the 'machine world' looking at those poor saps in the deluded world?Or if you have read Plato--when were you outside the cave and saw what was "really real"

I don't think one needs to have observed true reality to be able to theorise about it. In fact, I think existence itself implies and demands on true reality.

Yes,by why not.

Because the constancy of existence is not dependent on observation.

What can existence mean if not "that which appears to us"

Give me a definition you think is preferable to mine.

That which is.

A sentence like that used to make sense to me now it doesn't.

Why not?

That is the point.No matter how many people do tests on that tube it will still be an appearance to a humans. No?
All that you will really acheived in getting others to confirm it is a tube is to confirm it with consensus reality.Small beans I reckon.
What happens if the next day it "really" looks a snake again? ;D

I agree with this but even if we're all wrong about it, it's still something because it's caused a series of events. If it was nothing, no events would have been caused. By virtue of that, if it is indeed something doesn't it have it's own true nature, observable or not? Doesn't each thing in existence require a true nature to satisfy causality?

This is not an ideal explanation but it is not a bad start.Give you something to consider anyway.Try and approach it with no preconceptions about "obejective realities".Make like Descartes,assume nothing.

Will do, cheers. I've heard that guy's voice before somewhere.

 

[Rosy]

Are feelings and thoughts such as intuition, premonition and hairs standing on the back of the neck in warning considered woo? If so I've finally found something I'm good at.

 

[evo]

I don't think one needs to have observed true reality to be able to theorise about it. In fact, I think existence itself implies and demands on true reality.

But why.What is your reasoning?

And who or what could lead us to apprehending this one true reality?Surely not science,it is based on appearances.God then?But which God.

In my view "existence itself" implies only one thing.We are conscious.

Because the constancy of existence is not dependent on observation.

Well I think the reverse is true.The concept of existence is meaningless without consciousness.

That which is.

Well sure,I agree.

But what is that which 'Is'.According to your defintion "what is " is forever beyond our grasp.We can never trully know if it what it is f we discount appearances.Yesterday it is a snake, today a tyre tube,or something else.

I agree with this but even if we're all wrong about it, it's still something because it's caused a series of events.

What do you mean;something physical?

What about a dream? What are the physical causes of things that appear when we dream(apart from our brain)

If it was nothing, no events would have been caused. By virtue of that, if it is indeed something doesn't it have it's own true nature, observable or not?

What is 'true nature' in your paradigm?Is that the same as the 'objective reality'?

Doesn't each thing in existence require a true nature to satisfy causality?

A thing is its appearance.

In philosophy it is called its 'identity'.

In logic it is refered to by A=A.

check out the videos,hopefully it might become a little clearer.

 

[Disco08]

But why.What is your reasoning?

I think I gave my reasoning later in the post. If you accept existence and you accept causality, then I think it is unavoidable that every thing in existence has its own true nature or objective reality.

And who or what could lead us to apprehending this one true reality?Surely not science,it is based on appearances.God then?But which God.

Why must we be able to recognise or comprehend it? I'm quite certain no living being will ever truly grasp the reality of this universe in its purist form.

Well I think the reverse is true.The concept of existence is meaningless without consciousness.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. I don't think human concepts have the ability to reduce the universe into something meaningless.

But what is that which 'Is'.According to your defintion "what is " is forever beyond our grasp.We never trully know if it what it is.Yesterday it is a snak,e today a tyre tube,or something else.

Agreed, but as I've said the truth behind something does not have to be observed or understood to be or remain the truth.

What do you mean;something physical?

What about a dream? What are the physical causes of dreams(apart from our brain)

Not sure. Actually I find dreams, particularly other people talking about their dreams, incredibly boring.

I think anything that causes an effect should be classified as something, physical or otherwise.

What is 'true nature' in your paradigm?Is that the same as the 'objective reality'?

Yeah, same thing. Do you think causality requires each component of existence to have its own true nature? Isn't a billiard ball's reaction to being hit by another ball dictated by the true nature of each object, among other things?

A thing is its a appearance.

I disagree. To us, maybe a thing can only ever be its appearance. Outside perception though, a thing is a thing.

In philosophy it is called its 'identity'.

In logic it is refered to by A=A.

check out the videos,hopefully it might become a little clearer.

I will. I'll let you know if I get it.

 

[evo]

Why must we be able to recognise or comprehend it? I'm quite certain no living being will ever truly grasp the reality of this universe in its purist form.

Yeah maybe.Or it could be staring us right in the face.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one then. I don't think human concepts have the ability to reduce the universe into something meaningless.

That sounds to me like a contradiction.

What is meaning but an enterprise of examination by conscious beings.

Not sure. Actually I find dreams, particularly other people talking about their dreams, incredibly boring.

I think anything that causes an effect should be classified as something, physical or otherwise.

Sounds fair enough.

Yeah, same thing. Do you think causality requires each component of existence to have its own true nature? Isn't a billiard ball's reaction to being hit by another ball dictated by the true nature of each object, among other things?

I don't know what 'true nature' is.

I don't believe in the noumenon,the "thing-in-itself".

 

[Disco08]

By true nature I mean to say all the facts about a thing which determine what part it plays in causality.

That sounds to me like a contradiction.

What is meaning but an enterprise of examination by conscious beings.

I don't think so. If the only creatures on earth were tiny one cell beings wouldn't the sun have meaning to them even though they were not conscious and entirely unable to examine or contemplate it? So it would be in the absence of life IMO. The physical matter comprising the universe would still have meaning as it effected the flow of causality.

 

[evo]

By true nature I mean to say all the facts about a thing which determine what part it plays in causality.

I don't think so. If the only creatures on earth were tiny one cell beings wouldn't the sun have meaning to them even though they were not conscious and entirely unable to examine or contemplate it? So it would be in the absence of life IMO. The physical matter comprising the universe would still have meaning as it effected the flow of causality.

You seem to be conflating "meaning" with "influence"

It would be like saying the black ball sees meaning in the white ball on a snooker table.

I suppose it kinda has a post modern appeal to it.

 

[Disco08]

I think I'm leaning more towards 'significance' than 'influence'.

 

[Djevv]

It seems totally relevant to me.

We are trying to examine the claim that a 'soul' exists.So if we can narrow down what does and doesn't have one,it may help to examine what 'it' is.Don't you think.

Can we define something as having a soul if it has the "ability to make a choice"?

From your series of videos, a soul is an 'I'. From the previous discussion it would seem to be something that is self-aware, has personality, can make free moral judgements and is creative and thus can impose it's will on the world around it.

On the discussion of existance, I would have thought that science has indicated that that
1. Objects boundaries could be defined functionally - ie the leaf's outer boundary might be the cell membrane on the outer layer of it's cells.
2. Things do exist 'of themselves' and have properties and characteristics that define them. Their existance is independent of (our) conciousness.

Must say I found the videos interesting, I have never understood existentialism before. I thought the mockery of religious belief in video 3 to be poor form and not warranted by the content of the videos. For a bloke who is not even sure he exists he is fairly sure of some of his opinions :hihi.