Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[nonbeliever_92]

132pages? that's it? but you haven't posted any evidence yet! awwww man.

 

[Willamena]

Since I had mentioned the "reification fallacy" in an earlier post, it wasn't at all clear that your "No doubt" was responding to that criticism.

It wasn't. You're drawing an unnecessary connection.

And my your wording is convoluted here. I did not accuse you of arguing against reification but of falling victim to it. And reification is not really a linguistic argument. It is about confusing abstractions with real objects in the physical world.

My wording is not convoluted --I did not imply that you had accused anything.

 

[Commoner]

Wow, still no evidence?!

Well, I'm sure it's just around the corner.

 

[PureX]

I do not, nor have I ever on these forums, argued that only concepts exist, or that the idea of a thing is the thing. Neither are what I believe.

But the idea of the thing is really all we have, isn't it? I mean, we have the experience of the thing, but that's what creates the idea. So that our idea of the thing, is really our best guess as to that thing's actuality. It's all we have.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

what? no evidence?

 

[Commoner]

But the idea of the thing is really all we have, isn't it? I mean, we have the experience of the thing, but that's what creates the idea. So that our idea of the thing, is really our best guess as to that thing's actuality. It's all we have.

No, we also have an objective world around us that lets us test our ideas over and over again, using different methods, from multiple viewpoints in order to establish if those ideas are an actual representation of reality or not.

 

[Willamena]

But the idea of the thing is really all we have, isn't it? I mean, we have the experience of the thing, but that's what creates the idea. So that our idea of the thing, is really our best guess as to that thing's actuality. It's all we have.

Still, you (in your words) recognize that the idea of a thing is not "all we have" if we also have the idea of an actuality of the thing that lies behind the "best guess." Right?

To say that ideas about the universe are all we have, that there may be something more beyond but we cannot know what it is, is to split the world --that is, to model a world that is divided firmly along a line of knowledge or "knowing". That's duality. Duality models the world truthfully, but monism also models the (same) world truthfully and it includes us, rather than excludes us, from that world.

 

[PureX]

Still, you (in your words) recognize that the idea of a thing is not "all we have" if we also have the idea of an actuality of the thing that lies behind the "best guess." Right?

That's based on the lack of knowledge. We can know that we don't know everything that there is to know about a thing. So even though our idea of the thing is al we have, we can know that there's more, without knowing how much more, or what more there is.

To say that ideas about the universe are all we have, that there may be something more beyond but we cannot know what it is, is to split the world --that is, to model a world that is divided firmly along a line of knowledge or "knowing". That's duality. Duality models the world truthfully, but monism also models the (same) world truthfully and it includes us, rather than excludes us, from that world.

But these are just perspectives. Monism doesn't make us any smarter about any given object.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I really don't think conceptions are all we have. Otherwise, what would we base our conceptions on?

 

[Willamena]

That's based on the lack of knowledge. We can know that we don't know everything that there is to know about a thing. So even though our idea of the thing is al we have, we can know that there's more, without knowing how much more, or what more there is.

My point still stands.

But these are just perspectives. Monism doesn't make us any smarter about any given object.

Everything is perspective.

 

[PureX]

My point still stands. Everything is perspective.

That's disconcerting.

 

[themadhair]

This is a little off-topic but I found it interesting. It was also on my mind given how many posts I had devoted to complaining about this.

Reification fallacy (can’t believe I never knew this fallacy had a name before this thread) is when a ‘perception of a thing’ is equivocated with the ‘thing’ that gave rise to that perception.

At the moment I’m reading the book ‘Advanced Procedure & Axioms’ which contains a list of foundation logics and axioms from which the core of Scientology is derived. See if you can follow the very subtle reification fallacy going on here.

Small note – the use of ‘study tech’ would normally be used by people reading this book. So the definition Hubbard gives here would be the one that the reader would use.

First we start with Hubbard’s definition of the word ‘Environment’:

The surroundings of the preclear from moment to moment, in particular or in general, including people, pets, mechanical objects, weather, culture, clothing or the Supreme Being. Anything he perceives or believes he perceives. The objective environment is the environment everyone agrees is there. The subjective environment is the environment the individual himself believes is there. They may not agree.

This is actually quite an interesting redefinition. Is the world flat simply because people agree that it is? Of course not, and this is reducing objectivity to the subjectivity of the collective (wonder why Hubbard wanted that?). This definition isn’t defining the environment, it is defining the ‘perception of the environment’. Here is an example of how this definition is incorporated into the logics:

LOGIC 6. ABSOLUTES ARE UNOBTAINABLE.

LOGIC 7. GRADIENT SCALES ARE NECESSARY TO THE EVALUATION
OF PROBLEMS AND THEIR DATA.

This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.

COROLLARY – ANY DATUM HAS ONLY RELATIVE TRUTH.
COROLLARY – TRUTH IS RELATIVE TO ENVIRONMENTS, EXPERIENCE
AND TRUTH.

This is quite clever actually. By holding truth relative to environments, and by redefining the term to be a perception, truth becomes not only subjective – but becomes aligned with the opinion of the collective (wonder why Hubbard wanted that one?).

And just to confirm that the above definition is indeed a conflation, consider these:

AXIOM 57. THE EFFORT OF AN ORGANISM IS DIRECTED TOWARD THE CONTROL OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL THE DYNAMICS.
AXIOM 58. CONTROL OF AN ENVIRONMENT IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE SUPPORT OF PRO-SURVIVAL FACTORS ALONG ANY DYNAMIC.
AXIOM 59. ANY TYPE OF HIGHER ORGANISM IS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE EVOLUTION OF VIRUSES AND CELLS INTO FORMS CAPABLE OF BETTER EFFORTS TO CONTROL OR LIVE IN AN ENVIRONMENT.

Effort is divided into the effort of the individual himself and the efforts of the environment (physical) against the individual.

The moral of the story is: reification fallacy = do not want.

 

[Willamena]

That's disconcerting.

Good!

 

[Willamena]

Reification fallacy (can’t believe I never knew this fallacy had a name before this thread) is when a ‘perception of a thing’ is equivocated with the ‘thing’ that gave rise to that perception.

More precisely, it's when an abstract thing (like a word or other symbol) is taken as the thing it represents. 'Perception' could be one of the things so represented.

Edit: If you promote ""a perception of a thing", the "idea", as symbol, as language, then concretizing it is reification.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

still no evidence? wha?!

 

[Willamena]

still no evidence? wha?!

yay! I'm so glad I clicked on this link just to hear you contribute that very important bit to the discussion.

If you want proof, supply it.

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....
Well, the truth is, from your description of it, the "mystic experience" does not differ from a psychotic event, so how could I distinguish one from the other. .......But if I believe that someone was really, honestly convinced by it and that this conviction came from an experience - I can't imagine what kind of an experience that could be. I can imagine a lot of experiences that would, in my mind, not have justified the claim. .......Of course, there can certainly be a part of the interpretation that comes later (let's say interpreting that it was god), but the basic interpretation must have come first - in order to have an effect at all. ....Now, with a very clever use of "experience" as being the subjective interpretation itself - not any aactual event, you can try and get around this. But then you can't use the "experience" to point to anything outside itself.Let me clearify;

Imagine two people, one is afraid of spiders and the other likes them. You subject them both to the same conditions - you make them hold the spider in their hands. One will feel fear and might suffer some long lasting effects from it - some people develop really strong phobias when subjected to such a stressful event, but the other person wont really find the experience significant.

If you define "experience" as what they felt - then you can dismiss the second person, since there was no significant effect on him and you can place a very high significance on the "experience" of the first person. But in reality, they experienced the same event - having to hold a spider in their hands.

And if you, the researcher, didn't understand why it had such an effect on one person and not the other, you might consider that something else must have happened to the first person - something "special" must have occured. In my opinion, that's what you are doing.

I had been struggling to articulate this point through the use of neurotheology, but this is so much better and clearer. Frubals when I can give you some.

The problem still exists, however, that the concept of god as presented with the "mystic experience" is identical to a psychotic episode, so it basically falls in the same group as delusions. They might not all be happy with that.

My interpretation of the description is only as good as the description. I can objectively show every one of those attributes to be present in what we consider to be psychotic episodes and mental illnesses. There is not a single attribute that makes it "something more".

Greetings. Back now with guests having retreated. Thank you for your patience (if it was there) and thank you for your diligence to return (if you do).

Commoner, Themadhair, and Willamena, looks like you have had some good discussion of points and counterpoints. Let me not go over treated material but instead skip and cut to the heart of our problem.

It is obvious from your posts, Commoner and Themadhair, that you do not understand this Mystic Experience. It is reasonable that you do not and this does not reflect negatively in any way upon you. It is as much the problem with explanation as with understanding. My lack of understanding is how to describe this Mystic Experience to you in a way that your dualistic perspective can see the pointers. You see, the heart of the problem is that the Mystic Experience is nondual and we are trying to present it to you and you are trying to understand it from a dualistic perspective. It will not work. There is not likely any way a dualistic perspective even coming from an extremely open mind can encompass and understand a nondual perspective. Let me try to explain further.

[FONT=&quot]Commoner, let us take your nice, clearly written spider example that Themadhair appreciates so much. Your view is that you have a human (the subject) which experiences a spider (the object) and interprets that experience based on previous conditions held internally. That view is not in any way representative of the Mystic Experience which is nondual; there is no subject, no object, and no interpretation. It is not a human reaching up to experience Enlightenment, union with God. Because of your dualistic interpretation of ‘experience’ here, let us use ‘instance’ for the purpose of discussion. The Mystic Instance is the breakthrough of the nonduality into realization. The direct awareness of this nonduality, this oneness, is the instance. It is not an interpretation for it is part of the instance at the outset. My prior use of ‘experience’ was known to be misleading from the beginning. Your interpretation of ‘experience’ from the dualistic view always has a subject that experiences an object. That is not correct here and that is why some mystics say that the Mystic Instance is not an experience and they don’t put a term on it that will misrepresent.

Now, let us take a look at your 'psychotic' interpretation. Of course, you will turn to mental disorder to understand something so far outside your experience and understanding; to make the square peg fit into the round hole. But let me try some thoughts out on you, Commoner, to see if there is any area that we can agree on here. In my understanding, the psychotic has lost some touch with some aspect of your reality - the subject-object reality and the objective world surrounding the subject. There will be something show up in conversation, in tests, or other means that does not match your objective reality. Right? Well, the Mystic has no such lost touch in reality. The Mystic can see everything exactly as you do and can function as a scientist or any other profession as well as you. There is no psychosis. What the 'attribute that makes the Mystic Experience something more' is the nondual perspective that has been added. The dualistic perspective is still understood and the unique self with a nondual perspective always will understand everything from your dualistic perspective as well because one comes through the dualistic perspective. Let me just ask a question, Commoner. Do you know of any psychosis that exists in thousands at the same time, that thousands more seek because of its extra ordinariness, that teachers are transmitting to thousands of others in many countries, and that adds an element of joy to underly all living?

Hope this helps understanding.

Regards,
a..1
[/FONT]

 

[Willamena]

[FONT=&quot]Hope this helps understanding.[/FONT]

Somehow. . . nevermind.

 

[Cobblestones]

There are several threads on which people have been arguing about the "evidence" or lack thereof of the existence of "God". These threads were not started with this subject in mind, so I'm starting a new thread to keep them from being sidetracked.

Unless a God is in any way "personal" or interested in human beings either corporately or as individuals, there really is no practical benefit to a "belief in god" is there? I mean, if by "god" you mean a kind of Force then who gives a flying rip about it any more than one cares about neutrinos?

Unless you are discussing a personal god (and that idea is completely without merit) the entire discussion is not only pointless it is completely devoid of any meaning whatsoever with regards to how people go about living their lives.

 

[autonomous1one1]

somehow. . . Nevermind.

....