Negative vs positive 'energy'

[Politesse]

If there are very reasonable and logical explanations for things, but we choose to accept unrepeatable, illogical, and irrational explanations for any of the phenomena that we test, that would leave us with a very flawed perspective of the world in which we live, wouldn't it? It would be an extremely subjective worldview, based solely on our preferences and biases. There's nothing inherently wrong with people's biases. But there is something very wrong with subjecting other people to our biases, regardless of how sincere they are.

How is "very reasonable and logical" anything but a description of one's own biases? Everyone thinks their own bias is justified, you don't need a degree to experience an emotional feeling of calm certainty in one's conclusions.

 

[jonathan180iq]

How is "very reasonable and logical" anything but a description of one's own biases? Everyone thinks their own bias is justified, you don't need a degree to experience an emotional feeling of calm certainty in one's conclusions.

No, you do not need a degree to experience things. But you do need to filter your subjective experiences through the experiences of others to see how legitimate your conclusions are...
We do this from birth, comparing our emotional expressions and behaviors to those around us. We stabilize our otherwise unbalanced reactions by comparing them to our community. This is what moderates and regulates us, as social beings.
Higher thought processes, learning, and knowledge are no different. Our individual conclusions have to be tested through the filter of other people's previous individual conclusions.

Things that are very reasonable and logical are so because they follow a pretty strict set of philosophical rules, not because they are based on my biases. These rules have been established and tested over the last few hundred years of human experience. If they could be reasoned away, they would have been by now. If you don't believe that, just test it.

 

[Politesse]

No, you do not need a degree to experience things. But you do need to filter your subjective experiences through the experiences of others to see how legitimate your conclusions are...
We do this from birth, comparing our emotional expressions and behaviors to those around us. We stabilize our otherwise unbalanced reactions by comparing them to our community. This is what moderates and regulates us, as social beings.
Higher thought processes, learning, and knowledge are no different. Our individual conclusions have to be tested through the filter of other people's previous individual conclusions.

If people's conclusions are as faulty as you claim, why would you get closer to the truth by comparing several faulty perspectives? But if they are fundamentally logical, shouldn't we conclude that reality is something close to consensus reality?

Things that are very reasonable and logical are so because they follow a pretty strict set of philosophical rules, not because they are based on my biases. These rules have been established and tested over the last few hundred years of human experience. If they could be reasoned away, they would have been by now. If you don't believe that, just test it.

I am testing it. If "rules" of logic are simple a priori truths, why are logic and reasoning understood so very differently around the world and across the spectrum of society?

 

[jonathan180iq]

If people's conclusions are as faulty as you claim, why would you get closer to the truth by comparing several faulty perspectives?

Because there must be some mechanism for distinguishing between the legitimacy of Powerful Space Wizards versus the atomic number of Hydrogen...

But if they are fundamentally logical, shouldn't we conclude that reality is something close to consensus reality?

If our conclusions were fundamentally logical, then there would never be an assertion that Powerful Space Wizards exist.

I am testing it. If "rules" of logic are simple a priori truths, why are logic and reasoning understood so very differently around the world and across the spectrum of society?

They are not a priori - and that's precisely my point. They are only used as a mechanism for discerning truth because we test them constantly and make sure they work. By definition that makes them a posteriori, doesn't it?

 

[Politesse]

Because there must be some mechanism for distinguishing between the legitimacy of Powerful Space Wizards versus the atomic number of Hydrogen...

If one starts with the assumption that they are different, yeah. But that assumption can't be defended in a way that sets it apart from other metaphysical assumptions.

 

[Kerr]

This might be an odd question, but wondering your thoughts on it. I was driving into work today and thought about people who ‘give off’ negative energy. Is there a scientific explanation for that, or is this just something people say? I know that energy can only be transferred, and there is a general school of thought that when you’re dealing with negative people, you come away from spending time with them, feeling negative. How can energy be negative and positive, as it relates to people? Isn’t energy, just simply…energy? I think weird thoughts when I’m driving to work.

Speaking as someone with a lot of negative energy and who study physics... what science mean by energy and what people mean when they say someone has negative energy isn't the same thing . In the case of a person with negative energy, it's a lot of negative attitude and emotions which affects their behaviour and body language and so on. Turns out other people notice that, lol. And are affected by it. Guess it has more to do with the social nature of humanity then anything else. Maybe compassion. Now that I think about it, wonder if someone has actually studied how this works? Would be interesting to read.