"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[Polymath257]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

It needs some correction, please, right?
Science, as per the Scientific Method , is a tool to reckon reality, only in the physical and material realms; to reckon reality in issues that fall in the ethical , moral and spiritual realms, the proper methodology is the Religious Method, please, right?
One may like to click my post #182 in this connection which I wrote some times ago in these forums, please, right?

Regards

Can you please describe the 'religious method'? How does it resolve conflicts? For example, if two people disagree about some ethical principle, how does the 'religious method help to resolve the dispute? Or, suppose that two people disagree about which religion to use. How does the 'religious method' serve to resolve the disagreement?

 

[Eli G]

I don't know what the forum member calls a "religious method" specifically ... but one way that two people who try to govern their beliefs and practices by the Bible can rectify their errors is to jointly analyze what the Bible says about that specific belief or practice.

Of course, this method is of no use to those who do not consider the Bible as the source of true faith.

 

[Quester]

I am not a part of that we. Sorry, but you are not a we like that.

What I mean is that we all start from the exact same place, knowing absolutely nothing as kids, and where we wind up is based on the method we use for "learning." Constructivism is just one of those methods.

 

[Pogo]

There is no need to do so. Reality as seen through our cognition is demonstrably observed to be independent of our cognition.

You can close your eyes. Open your eyes. Go to sleep. Get drunk. Bang your head. Become the supreme dictator and issue laws to the contrary and write them in manifestos....and yet that humble pitcher of water will only start boiling when the temperature reaches a 100 C at 1 atm pressure. All your great fancy powers of consciousness cannot make it do anything else. Thats REALITY.

But there is a school of thought (sic) that it is a logical possibility ie imaginable without internal contradiction that "mind" is the ultimate source of everything we know and it is not physical and so it can have properties that conflict with shall we say methodological naturalism because MN can't account for everything in this philosophical idea. Ultimately it seems to be the argument that what I (the individual) think because it is mind is the real reality or something like that.
Ultimately it is just another religious attempt to find some answer to things they don't like about the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, for example, I could set up a camera to take a picture when nobody is around. That picture would show the existence of something when nobody is around. Nobody need to know about the existence at the time the picture is taken.

And this is something that is quite common: for example, to take pictures of wildlife in this way. No person needs to see the actual animal, but the camera takes a picture which shows the existence of that animal at a particular time.

Yeah, but you are around to see the picture. I want you to explain how you can know something without knowing as such.
Not a case where you are there in the universe. A case where there are not humans at all and then how it possible to know that there is something.

Yes. And still there. it still exists even if nobody knows about it.

Yeah, you know about it because you see the picture. So your example doesn't meet the standard of nobody knows about it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But there is a school of thought (sic) that it is a logical possibility ie imaginable without internal contradiction that "mind" is the ultimate source of everything we know and it is not physical and so it can have properties that conflict with shall we say methodological naturalism because MN can't account for everything in this philosophical idea. Ultimately it seems to be the argument that what I (the individual) think because it is mind is the real reality or something like that.
Ultimately it is just another religious attempt to find some answer to things they don't like about the world.

Or it is unknowable what objective reality is other than independent of the mind.
Not that the mind creates reality, but to claim that we can know something as independent of the mind can't be done because we know in the mind.
And that is not religion as such. That is skepticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, your mind can confuse itself. That is part of the dillema of subjectivity, it can be irrational and contrary to fact, or it can work towards a discipline that allows a high standard for conclusions. Krishnamurti talked and wrote about the discipline of mind, and being the observer and the observed.

Subjectivity is a mental process, it isn't any set of objects. But it is a real mental phenomena, so an objective fact in that sense.

So my mind can do something. How? How do you observe that objectively and in an absolute sense?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, for example, I could set up a camera to take a picture when nobody is around. That picture would show the existence of something when nobody is around. Nobody need to know about the existence at the time the picture is taken.

And this is something that is quite common: for example, to take pictures of wildlife in this way. No person needs to see the actual animal, but the camera takes a picture which shows the existence of that animal at a particular time.

Take #2:
Here is the test as per random. You can build a camera that takes picture of wild animals on a wild animal trail in nature. Now the camera also takes a picture when there is no animal each time it has taken a picture with an animal.
So say there are 50 picture and the camera mixes the order randomly.

Now without looking at a given picture, tell if there is an animal in it or not. So what does the picture show the existence of?
Now there is something, but you don't know what it is. That is the point.

You can using ccogntive understanding give reasin of that there is unknown element to the world. That what that is other than unknown, is unknown.
That is the point of independent of the mind.

 

[Eli G]

What is in the human mind is the reflection or image of the reality... and that reflection can take many forms, but it does not determine reality at all. So philosophy or human thought does not influence reality or the laws that govern it, because these exist outside of human consciousness, and humans cannot change the natural laws with which the universe was created.

Humans will never ever change the future of the universe, because they cannot change how it works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is in the human mind is the reflection or image of the reality... and that reflection can take many forms, but it does not determine reality at all. So philosophy or human thought does not influence reality or the laws that govern it, because these exist outside of human consciousness, and humans cannot change the natural laws with which the universe was created.

Humans will never ever change the future of the universe, because they cannot change how it works.

Well, yes in a sense, yet I can still disagree with you about the meaning of life.

 

[Eli G]

Life came from its original source: our Creator.

So, it is the Creator the One to tell us the meaning of the life He gave us.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Life came from its original source: our Creator.

So, it is the Creator the One to tell us the meaning of the life He gave us.

Yeah, I believe differently than you.

 

[Eli G]

Many times beliefs are different than reality.

 

[Pogo]

Humans will never ever change the future of the universe, because they cannot change how it works.

Nor can any imaginary constructs of the human mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mnay times beliefs are different than reality.

Yeah, but I don¨t know what is the correct reality. And I don't believe I believe in the correct one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nor can any imaginary constructs of the human mind.

Well, humans still get killed for being believed to be witches and I do believe that takes place in reality.

 

[Eli G]

Yeah, I believe differently than you.

Since many people think what they want without having any relation to reality, I decided to ignore those people in this forum. They have nothing to contribute to my understanding of reality. In fact, many of those who are on my ignore list are only conflictive people, who, due to their behavior, bring misfortune to humanity instead of benefit.

Who cares what these people think, if they're not even interested in human beings getting along with each other? Not me.

Have a good one.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know what the forum member calls a "religious method" specifically ... but one way that two people who try to govern their beliefs and practices by the Bible can rectify their errors is to jointly analyze what the Bible says about that specific belief or practice.

Of course, this method is of no use to those who do not consider the Bible as the source of true faith.

Or even to those who use a different translation. Or those who consider it one helping document, but allow others.

 

[Polymath257]

Life came from its original source: our Creator.

So, it is the Creator the One to tell us the meaning of the life He gave us.

Even if the first statement is true, I don’t think the second would be. We could, for example, think the purpose he has isn’t one we want. And that would be sufficient to say the creator was wrong.

I see a similar thing arising potentially with artificial intelligence. If we manage to create such, the purpose we assign may not be what that intelligence wants. And we don’t get to choose that.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, humans still get killed for being believed to be witches and I do believe that takes place in reality.

Whether or not they were really witches. Again, we see the disconnect between beliefs and reality.