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

[F1fan]

So my mind can do something. How?

How does it comprehend my posts, and then respond? Well cognitive psychology will explain that to you.

How do you observe that objectively and in an absolute sense?

By observing your posts are independent of my mind.

Or if you want to see EEG measurements that’s an option for you. Electrodes will be attached to your head and they will measure activity.

And there have been PET scans that map brain activity as subjects think certain ideas and thoughts.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

Yeah, the beliefs are not in reality, so they are not really real or don't exists, yet you talk about tem as if they exists.

 

[Eli G]

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.
...

Jehovah, our Creator, does not want anyone to serve him under obligation.

But each person will have to face the consequences of their personal decisions. If you do not wish to live in the future that has already been decided, there is no future for the enemies of the Creator. Life only has one source, not two.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Jehovah, our Creator, does not want anyone to serve him under obligation.

But each person will have to face the consequences of their personal decisions. If you do not wish to live in the future that has already been decided, there is no future for the enemies of the Creator. Life only has one source, not two.

And you show your true face.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How does it comprehend my posts, and then respond? Well cognitive psychology will explain that to you.


By observing your posts are independent of my mind.

Or if you want to see EEG measurements that’s an option for you. Electrodes will be attached to your head and they will measure activity.

And there have been PET scans that map brain activity as subjects think certain ideas and thoughts.

But your mind is not in reality. So how do you know that yiu have a mind?

 

[Eli G]

@mikkel_the_dane You showed yours.

But I don't mind faces, I mind the truth, and that is what I share with others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@mikkel_the_dane You showed yours.

But I don't mind faces, I mind the truth, and that is what I share with others.

Yeah, I know. You share your truth. I share mine.

 

[Eli G]

You're starting to sound like a conflictive person.
I guess you go where I got the others like you.
Good bye.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, the beliefs are not in reality, so they are not really real or don't exists, yet you talk about tem as if they exists.

No they are consistent with our understanding of reality, you claim a different reality that you are unable to demonstrate exists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No they are consistent with our understanding of reality, you claim a different reality that you are unable to demonstrate exists.

Well, if say you see a cat and you say it exists, how do you know that it exists as exists? What does that mean and how do you know its referent?

 

[Pogo]

You're starting to sound like a conflictive person.
I guess you go where I got the others like you.
Good bye.

If you mean smiling at your smilies, yup we recognize the absurdity of your claimed positions.

 

[Pogo]

Well, if say you see a cat and you say it exists, how do you know that it exists as exists? What does that mean and how do you know its referent?

I say that according to the axioms I accept, the mental construct that "sees" blood where the "cat" scratched me and I felt pain is indicative of reality considering that others say they saw it and accepted that pain would be a reasonable outcome.
Now it is always possible that all of this is just an unknown something behaving in unknowable ways for some reason I cannot perceive, but without evidence of any of these unknowns, I will default to my brain telling me that a cat scratched me.
Generally we call this methodological naturalism, the unknowns may be true it truth means anything, but I ain't gonna worry bout dem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I say that according to the axioms I accept, the mental construct that "sees" blood where the "cat" scratched me and I felt pain is indicative of reality considering that others say they saw it and accepted that pain would be a reasonable outcome.
Now it is always possible that all of this is just an unknown something behaving in unknowable ways for some reason I cannot perceive, but without evidence of any of these unknowns, I will default to my brain telling me that a cat scratched me.
Generally we call this methodological naturalism, the unknowns may be true it truth means anything, but I ain't gonna worry bout dem.

You didn't explain what exists means.

Edit - I get it now. Okay, I share properly share the axioms or close to yours.

 

[F1fan]

But your mind is not in reality.

Then how are you posting?

So how do you know that yiu have a mind?

Because my awareness of my brain functioning. Minds are a collection of brain functions.

 

[paarsurrey]

"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?

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?

Isn't it that even when we use the Scientific Method, the difference of opinions/conflicts still exist, right, please?

Regards
________________

3.1 Psychologists Use the Scientific Method to Guide Their Research – Introduction to Psychology – 1st Canadian Edition

opentextbc.ca

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, the beliefs are not in reality, so they are not really real or don't exists, yet you talk about tem as if they exists.

It is part of reality that I have beliefs. But the content of those beliefs does not correspond with reality.

Why is this concept so difficult for you?

If I am thinking of a unicorn, the thought is a real thought. The thought exists in reality (as far as we can tell, as a pattern of processes in the brain). But the content of that thought (the referent) is not (since unicorns do not exist). The fact that I am thinking about unicorns does NOT imply that unicorns exist in reality.

 

[Polymath257]

Jehovah, our Creator, does not want anyone to serve him under obligation.

But each person will have to face the consequences of their personal decisions. If you do not wish to live in the future that has already been decided, there is no future for the enemies of the Creator. Life only has one source, not two.

That isn't free choice: it is intimidation and coercion

Next, it is *your* belief that there is no future for those who do not believe or agree with the creator you believe in. others do not share that belief. And, since *nobody* has evidence that there is/was a creator at all, it is anyone's guess what the real status is..

 

[Polymath257]

But your mind is not in reality. So how do you know that yiu have a mind?

The mind is in reality. As far as we can tell, the mind is constructed of patterns of neuron firings in the brain. That is being in reality. But that does not mean that the *model* the brain makes of reality is always (or even usually) correct.

 

[Polymath257]

Isn't it that even when we use the Scientific Method, the difference of opinions/conflicts still exist, right, please?

The scientific method allows for a method to resolve disagreements.

1. Find/design an experiment that will give one result if one person is correct and a different result if the other person is correct. If no such experiment exists even in theory, then there is no *actual* disagreement.

2. Do the experiment and see what happens.

3. At the very least, if steps 1 and 2 are done properly, at least one person will be shown to be wrong. That person needs to modify their beliefs to agree with the results found.

Differences of opinion can persist if we cannot, for some reason, actually perform the experiment (say, we need funding to build the apparatus to conduct the experiment) or if we didn't design it appropriately, so it gives ambiguous results. If we don't manage to do a conclusive experiment because steps 1 and 2 are not currently possible, then disagreements can continue.

But, if the experiment is properly designed (by both/all sides), then actually doing the experiment should at least say at least one person is wrong.

 

[danieldemol]

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?

Wrong in my view. Ethics has its basis in avoiding the causes of demonstrable harm as I see it. To know about demonstrable harms you need science. The religious method relies on declaring a set of superstitions to be correct and then acting accordingly and as such is counter-productive to apply to ethics in my view.