But justice uses objective reality to convict criminals.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Knowledge, evidence, truth, proof, assumption, axiom, belief, faith and so on
- Thread starter mikkel_the_dane
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How do you know if it is a synthetic a priori knowledge claim?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
an anarchist
Your local loco.
I solved your problem when I said "I think, therefore I am".
(I'm leaving WiFi so won't be able to respond for a while)
You're an atheist, right?Yeah, skepticism is not really your thing.
Your philosophical views are influenced by your atheism.
I believe in God, and that means that when I die, God will answer all my questions, because he is the Truth.
He has billions of videos saved, because He records anything.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, not according to Descartes. So you have to expand on that.
AppieB
Active Member
You mean they believe that the supernatural exists within reality, right? That something different than believing that their experience doens't reflect reality.
This is what I mean when I'm saying you're all over the place. Take it step by step. If not, you're going to make mistakes in thinking.
Please be clear in your language and reasoning.
What you are trying to say (it seems to me) is how do we investigate reality in way so that we can acquire knowledge that is reliable?
My answer would be that science is currently the best method to do it. At least for objective reality.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I have a different faith and beliefs.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So we stop here, because no all humans believe in the same reality as you believe in.
Most people believe they can "know" about reality, but from there doesn't follow that they all believe in the same reality as you.
AppieB
Active Member
Everyone perceives reality in a different personal way, that's true. But that doesn't negate what I've said. I said that they believe that what they are experiencing is reality.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, but it is not the same reality in all cases, that we all believe in.
And that you claim it is personal, is your understanding. To some it is not really personal as you understand it.
So yes, it negates that we all believe in the same reality.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The solution to the problem of solipsism is the brain's operating system is grounded on what has been referred to as the archetypes of collective unconscious. This neural firmware defined humans as a species; our common human nature. This neural firmware assures we can perceive in similar ways regardless of culture. Where we depart from that, is the ego.
The ego is empty at birth and evolves/learns from external conditioning. It has a unique POV in terms of time and space; unique experience, angle and context. One needs to be more in touch with the inner self and the collective unconscious and less ego centric to overcome hard solipsism. The evil demon symbolizes the ego. Knowledge of good and evil is not innate but is learned cultural knowledge, from the outside.
I think, therefore I am, is all about "me", which is the ego talking. The inner self is more like, I think therefore we are. The inner self is a natural product of evolution, where selection requires adaptation in hard reality. You cannot live in a fantasy world or a soft reality of your own chosen, and be able to survive and be selected by nature.
What confuses the issue are the unnatural living arrangements of culture, with all its mops, that can clean up after alternate reality. The inner self is the product of letting nature run its course, without mops, so what is left standing can be part of the inner self. Human have left nature for millennia but like the DNA, the inner self is conservative and still works in terms of common human nature.
PureX
Veteran Member
Yet you also somehow "know" (presume) that you are not what you experience. That you and your experiences are different.
How is this so?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Evidence reveals the external properties and behavior of phenomena in reality and nothing more. The truth of reality is a philosophical question that interprets evidence to support or reject an idea about what it actually is. The true nature of reality can never be intrinsically known. We know of gravity by its behavior, but what gravity actually is is a wild shot in the dark.
Concepts can limit, or inform. The map is not the territory. Knowledge works very well in terms of properties and behavior that are relevant to the world we live in. But truth explanations can be interpreted in many different ways and no one has a monopoly on that. So knowledge is relative to what is useful for living beings.
To say A is A is merely a useful reference label. Science has the monopoly on useful information. Truth is not monopolized at all. Consciousness has external behavior, and intrinsic qualities. Explaining behavior is not getting at what the truth of it is. So I make the distinction between extrinsic reality and intrinsic reality. Intrinsic actuality can never be known; what something actually is.
Concepts can limit, or inform. The map is not the territory. Knowledge works very well in terms of properties and behavior that are relevant to the world we live in. But truth explanations can be interpreted in many different ways and no one has a monopoly on that. So knowledge is relative to what is useful for living beings.
To say A is A is merely a useful reference label. Science has the monopoly on useful information. Truth is not monopolized at all. Consciousness has external behavior, and intrinsic qualities. Explaining behavior is not getting at what the truth of it is. So I make the distinction between extrinsic reality and intrinsic reality. Intrinsic actuality can never be known; what something actually is.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
How do you know this one? . Science has the monopoly on useful information.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I have one axiom of objective reality:
That we each experience it subjectively.
It follows from this, that any account of reality must, in order to be complete, account for the role of the observer, not only in perceiving reality but also perhaps, in helping to shape it.
It is my belief that in order to provide such an account we need to start where we are; as conscious observers of, and active participants in, the universe, it makes sense to adopt a second axiom, the axiom articulated by Descartes and quoted by @AppieB above. I think therefore I am. Though we should certainly make a distinction between thinking and observing.
By beginning where we are, we are essentially accepting that consciousness is fundamental. It is as fundamental to our human experience of the universe, as the flow of time, and the dimensions of space.
Acknowledging this requires us to abandon, or at least question, the materialist assumption that consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes in sentient beings.
Is this to deny the existence of mind-independent reality? Not necessarily; it’s more a philosophical Monist position wherein distinctions between object, observer, and the act of observation, are arbitrary. Everything is connected, basically.
That we each experience it subjectively.
It follows from this, that any account of reality must, in order to be complete, account for the role of the observer, not only in perceiving reality but also perhaps, in helping to shape it.
It is my belief that in order to provide such an account we need to start where we are; as conscious observers of, and active participants in, the universe, it makes sense to adopt a second axiom, the axiom articulated by Descartes and quoted by @AppieB above. I think therefore I am. Though we should certainly make a distinction between thinking and observing.
By beginning where we are, we are essentially accepting that consciousness is fundamental. It is as fundamental to our human experience of the universe, as the flow of time, and the dimensions of space.
Acknowledging this requires us to abandon, or at least question, the materialist assumption that consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes in sentient beings.
Is this to deny the existence of mind-independent reality? Not necessarily; it’s more a philosophical Monist position wherein distinctions between object, observer, and the act of observation, are arbitrary. Everything is connected, basically.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
By the technology we have today. We would be hunter/gatherers without it
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah and the "fun" part is that in makes sense to someone like me even as an atheist and non-religious, but to some of my fellow non-religious ones, it is not meaningful as the universe is material or whatever in that ballpark.
This illustrates how you get mired in tangents and can't progress into any understanding that helps you navigate life. None of us have the absolute truth you seem to desire. Most of us accept the awareness and experiences we have, and often will use Occam's Razor when confronted with options but lack time and evidence to know something or make a decision. You never use Occam's Razor or seem to have any value for it. You seem like a guy who is invited to a friend/s house to watch the big game but you sit in your driveway pondering the many different options you have to drive there, and unsure the map is accurate and will only get you lost or down a dead end. You sit there focused on the right way to get to your friend's house that you never get there and miss the experience.
At some point we don't care about the right way and we find out where the journey takes us.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, we don't agree, because to me, some versions of useful are not science as I understand it.