Fictional Life

[The Hammer]

Not sure what you're trying to say with this.
Do you think believing to be the master of your own fate redeems you from the the point written in the OP?
To me it just shows that some people value power and/or autonomy more, whereas others seem to put more emphasis on submission and humility.
That is the "lie" I tell myself.
I don't like to call it lying though, as I don't believe I'm deceiving myself, I'm creating order in my mind by slapping labels on things.
Of course this could be seen as just another lie.
But if all we know is lies, then what does truth mean?

I meant that the pattern can't be broken. It's in our core of being. It's who we are as humans (storytellers).

Just as you can't fight Fate.

 

[Nakosis]

Somehow it works though... Is it the gullibility and uneducated/unintelligence of the populace, that gives validity to such claims, you think? Or is it too late and the problem is the power they've accrued is at the point we cannot stop them from doing whatever they wish? :-\

I suspect it is more the way evolution has created us. The illusion, imo, of consciousness requires the creation of this fictional self.
Some have learn to add to this narrative that others have. Depending on the narrative we already have running, it is easier to have others add specific narratives.
For example if you already have a skeptical narrative running about some ideas, your are more likely to reject such narratives.
However if the idea happens to reinforce your current narrative it can get added without you making a conscious choice to.

 

[PureX]

The fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know anything.

But it does call into question anything that we think we do know. Because we can never know how what we don't yet know would change what we think we do know if we came to know it. For example, we once all knew that the Earth was flat. We didn't know everything, but we did know that. Until we earned some things that we didn't know, before. And that changed what we thought we did know, before, about the Earth being flat. So you say, "well we at least know some things", but any one of those things that we think we do know could be shown to be false with the next piece of information we discover. So we don't really know anything for sure without knowing everything. And we certainly don't know everything

So just thinking that we know some things doesn't mean that we do actually know some things. Because any of those things we think we know could turn out to have been wrong.

 

[Kooky]

Just as you can't fight Fate.

Of course you can't fight Fate, it only exists in our heads.

 

[Heyo]

But it does call into question anything that we think we do know. Because we can never know how what we don't yet know would change what we think we do know if we came to know it. For example, we once all knew that the Earth was flat. We didn't know everything, but we did know that. Until we earned some things that we didn't know, before. And that changed what we thought we did know, before, about the Earth being flat. So you say, "well we at least know some things", but any one of those things that we think we do know could be shown to be false with the next piece of information we discover. So we don't really know anything for sure without knowing everything. And we certainly don't know everything

So just thinking that we know some things doesn't mean that we do actually know some things. Because any of those things we think we know could turn out to have been wrong.

We never knew that the earth was flat. We didn't think about it for most of the time. People living on the coast had an idea of the earth not being flat but we only learned of the size of the earth by Eratosthenes in around 300 BC

The systematic gathering and questioning of knowledge indeed is much younger. Only in the 18th century did the scientific method develop and since then very few things we thought of as knowledge were overturned and none in the last 100 years. We know what we know and we know what we don't know.

 

[Kooky]

Most people who lived at or near the coast could see the horizon just fine.

 

[The Hammer]

Of course you can't fight Fate, it only exists in our heads.

I disagree. But I'm willing to agree to disagree.

 

[Kooky]

I disagree. But I'm willing to agree to disagree.

Did you say that because you chose to say it, or because it was preordained that you did?

 

[The Hammer]

Did you say that because you chose to say it, or because it was preordained that you did?

Fate/Predestination doesn't mean we don't have some control .

 

[PureX]

We never knew that the earth was flat. We didn't think about it for most of the time. People living on the coast had an idea of the earth not being flat but we only learned of the size of the earth by Eratosthenes in around 300 BC

The systematic gathering and questioning of knowledge indeed is much younger. Only in the 18th century did the scientific method develop and since then very few things we thought of as knowledge were overturned and none in the last 100 years. We know what we know and we know what we don't know.

It's kind of fun watching you insist that YOUR story of reality is THE story of reality.

 

[Kooky]

It's kind of fun watching you insist that YOUR story of reality is THE story of reality.

Ditto.

 

[Heyo]

It's kind of fun watching you insist that YOUR story of reality is THE story of reality.

You're way ahead of me. At the moment I just try to explain to you that there is a story.

 

[PureX]

You're way ahead of me. At the moment I just try to explain to you that there is a story.

Reality is just phenomena. It has no 'story' that we don't give it. In fact, the stories we give it are just more phenomena. When we place an object in the sunlight, it generates a shadow. When we place a cognitive mind in the sea of phenomena that is 'what is' it generates ideas. And these ideas cohere into in a 'story'. A 'story of reality'. Our stories of reality are like those shadows. They exist, and are partial reflections of the phenomena that generated them, but they should not be mistaken for the actual sea of phenomena that generated them.

And this is a mistake that we humans make, constantly. We confuse the cognitive reflections created in our minds by the phenomena of existence, for existence, itself. And we do this because we really don't like to acknowledge that existence is controlling us, as opposed to our controlling existence. We do have some free will, but it does not extend us much protection. Or much opportunity. Or even that much autonomy. And that means we are profoundly vulnerable to and within this mysterious sea of phenomena that we call existence. And that realization deeply and profoundly frightens us. So we prefer to ignore it, and pretend that we do know "what's going on", and that we are in charge of our own fate. That our idea of reality IS reality. And we will fight hard to maintain this presumption.

I see that fight on these threads all the time.

 

[Heyo]

And this is a mistake that we humans make, constantly. We confuse the cognitive reflections created in our minds by the phenomena of existence, for existence, itself.

Exactly. And that is what you are doing, or were doing before that post. So we do agree that there is a (single, objective) reality?

 

[PureX]

Exactly. And that is what you are doing, or were doing before that post. So we do agree that there is a (single, objective) reality?

No, we don't. At least I don't. "Objectivity" is just another story-line people invented to help them pretend they understand the great existential mystery. That mysterious sea of phenomena that we are all swimming in.

 

[Heyo]

No, we don't. At least I don't. "Objectivity" is just another story-line people invented to help them pretend they understand the great existential mystery. That mysterious sea of phenomena that we are all swimming in.

If there is no objective reality, then how do you explain that all experiments conducted by scientists point toward that conclusion?

 

[PureX]

If there is no objective reality, then how do you explain that all experiments conducted by scientists point toward that conclusion?

They don't point toward that conclusion. That's just your way of explaining the phenomena to yourself.

When the story was that the world was flat, the "experiments" of the day all pointed toward it being flat. Which is why we all accepted that story. Now, when everyone thinks the world is round, all the "experiments" of the day point to it being round. So we all accept that story, now. In the future when everyone realizes that the world is a whole inter-related collection of quantum phenomena, all the "experiments" will point us in that direction. And we all will be living in that story, then. And further on, when everyone realizes that physics and consciousness are both just reflections of each other within a greater realm of 'being', all the "experiments" will be revealing that to us, then, too. And all these stories are just reflections of that physical consciousness that is the 'sea of being'.

 

[Heyo]

When the story was that the world was flat, the "experiments" of the day all pointed toward it being flat.

What "experiments" (I think it is appropriate to put the quotes here) were the scientists of the day (who?) doing that pointed to a flat earth? (Before Eratosthenes that is, who's experiment pointed to (and measured the radius of) the round earth.)

Which is why we all accepted that story. Now, when everyone thinks the world is round, all the "experiments" of the day point to it being round.

Not only that. We can make prediction based on the experiments. If these experiments didn't reveal objective properties, why can we make precise predictions? If science was useless, why do we keep doing it? (OK, scrap that last one, we also keep doing religion and its usefulness is more than questionable.)

In the future when everyone realizes that the world is a whole inter-related collection of quantum phenomena, all the "experiments" will point us in that direction. And we all will be living in that story, then. And further on, when everyone realizes that physics and consciousness are both just reflections of each other within a greater realm of 'being', all the "experiments" will be revealing that to us, then, too. And all these stories are just reflections of that physical consciousness that is the 'sea of being'.

Is that a prediction? Based on what?

 

[Kooky]

When the story was that the world was flat, the "experiments" of the day all pointed toward it being flat.

No, they didn't. You are anachronistically transposing your belief in the inherent validity of empirical experiments onto time periods and places where those beliefs were not widespread.

The people who came up with flat earth nonsense were the ancient equivalent of out-of-touch ivory tower intellectuals who had never seen the horizon and were more interested in creating a particular narrative than anything involving "experiments", which was not how authoritative knowledge was acquired back then, anyway.

People who sailed the seas and saw the horizon were very well aware of the world's shape as far as they understood it.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Our stories of reality are like those shadows. They exist, and are partial reflections of the phenomena that generated them, but they should not be mistaken for the actual sea of phenomena that generated them.

I like this.

Have you seen the 'shadows' of 3-dimensional objects if they were to be perceived by a 2-dimensional creature in a 2d plane? It goes further to propose what a 4-dimensional shape might look like to us, on our plane. There was a lecture on it on The Royal Institute youtube channel: