Who knows?

[RestlessSoul]

Which makes the experience subjective, i.e. not independently measurable. And there is your answer: experience is not real.

If experience is not real, then for us, nothing is. All we have of reality is our experience of it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

On their way back from Haight Ashbury, and in the Tribe of Doobie?

No. If you really wish to read more about mine (first of many), you can do so here: What Makes You Think…

I defer to science to explain questions about how things are. Any ordinary person can invent answers, but are they worth anything?

Worth anything to whom? You, me, or the person "inventing" answers?

Why do you assume such an ordinary person hasn't deferred to science and found no answers there? Are you of the opinion that science already has all of the answers to explain every individual experience? There are new scientific revelations in the last few years in neuroscience that discuss the experiences we are discussing here. Have your read any of Andrew Newberg's work?

I remember something Krishamurti said. He said think of a fellow who goes out to a quarry and finds an ordinary rock. He then takes it home and builds a shrine. The fellow prays to this rock daily as a ritual for ten years. To this fellow this rock is significant due to the time and devotion he has invested, and it's becme very important to him.

What value is inherent in this ordinary rock to make it worthy of his time?

Who would have the best answer to that question? You? Me? Or perhaps the fellow with the rock?

 

[F1fan]

That is irrelevant to the point I was making. Their understanding of reality is based upon their collective views of what reality is, tied to their language, and their entire frameworks with which they translate their experience of the world through. That is reality to them. It is irrelevant whether you think it is real in the way they do or not.

We are talking about how people understand what is real, because it is part of a collective imagination of what that reality is; be that a mythic reality, or a scientific reality. And here's the funny thing, no one recognizes that their own collective imagination or framework or lens through which they see and understand what is real, is conditioned. They just all assume everyone's but their own is false, like what you are doing here.

But they aren't undrstanding reality. They are imagining demons and hells due to anxiety and fear of uncertainty. Many concepts in old religions are built on this same kind of behavior.

Look at who is reallyworking to understand reality, that is the sciences. Do computers exist because of what theists think they understand about reality? No. What do theists contribute to the body of knowledge that we all use as we progress into modernity? What does The Discovery Institute contribute? Only disinformation about science for guilible Christians.

Generally the new generation just carries on the language and ways of thinking about reality to the next one. That's called tradition. When they begins to shift, is when environmental pressures, such as social or cultural shifts begin to occur, such as an Empire bringing disparate cultures together in a cosmopolitan setting. That's when the older traditional ways of thinking about things, begin to fail to properly translate anymore.

That's when you have the casting off the old ways in favor of new more able ways to translate the world. This is what brings about cultural evolution. This is what brings about shifts into new common collective imaginations about the truth of reality, such as the one you you have currently been assimilated into, unaware that it too is a system of symbols and signs as much as any system before it has been.

Traditional Christianity is dying in the USA. The only form that is growing is th evanglicals, and arguably they are quite extreme in their political views and negative attitudes towards science. Young people seem less interested in religion and I think that questions the use and utility of religious belief in a modern culture. Tradition is important for societies, but there has to be a practical use for it to some degree. I think the fforts of the far right Christian influence as seen in politics is a very negative image to the younger generation. I suspect the evangelicals are going to become more extreme, as we see with the "anti-woke" efforts, and this will only create a backlash.

Again, you miss the point. Reality is more than rocks. It is also the experience of the ineffable. It is also the experience of love and connection with life and others. These are much less simple than mere physics. If physics and math was all there was to human reality, we'd be nothing but organic calculators or computers blindly running programs with no real subjective reality. This is in fact what the whole myth of Mr. Spock was written to capture. Being human is more than just being logical.

There is a fuzzy space not being mentioned, and that is what humans find person ally meaningful. Theists and atheists have meaning in life. Atheists and many theists accetpscience for what it reports. It is a subset of theists we are talking about here that hold a rigid set of beliefs that not only has no evidence, but contrtary to reality. You say reality is more than rocks. Sure, reality is that people like watching sports and have favorite teams. These are all real. The meaning is real. But is heaven and hell reality? To those who say it is what reality are we realy talking about? It's not factual. Why believe in any such thing? To suicide bombers they are fulfilling God's will against the infidels. Is thier mission reality? they such make it real to victims and emergency responders and families. But is the God that ordered the attack reality? It is to the bombers and those who talk them into it. Defend that "reality". This is the point, not mere belief in angels.

But since you mention astronauts, you do realize that while they were trusting in hard physics, which is praiseworthy, they also have a common experience of what is called the Overview Effect as a result of what physics as a tool was able to give them access to on the back of a rocket. Many have deeply spiritual, transcendent experiences that changed their lives. This is more common than not. So, you have more than just physics to the human experience. Ask an astronaut, since you brought them up.

I've felt awe myself. The difference is to have the cognitive skill to not get overly emotional and assume the feelings justify all the religious tropes we hears about all through life. Feeling awe is explained by science. So is the two options of responding to it. Those who fall back to religious belief is due to how the brain processes the emotions. It bypasses the frontal lobes and activates the reward system of the brain. This is why there's feelings of euphoria. To the uneducated they will just assume it is a magical spiritual exverience. To the informed they realize it is chemicals in the brain. This doesn't mean the awe and euphoria isn't felt, it just isn't assumed to be magic. It's just biology.

Do you want to believe it's magic? If so, why? Understand it is just biology doesn't make the awe and euphoria go away, it's just a proper answer. Some folks prefer the illusion. They should just be honest that it is an illusion and not reality.

I'm not saying don't enjoy the illusion, just understand that's what it is. If believers are confused about illusion, what else will they become confused about?

Why are you a Buddhist if you think there is no relevance to human living in understanding the nature of our existence and being? Why not just work, eat, sleep, make babies, get old and die? Why seek Buddha Mind? How is that relevant to living, if it's all just physics anyway?

Buddhism isn't about meaning. It is a set of practices that help manage the emotions and mind. It takes a lot of work to attain discipline. What Buddhism offers is in many ways the antithesis of what religions offer, and that is an undisciplined mind that justifies what it wants to believe.

I would say there is an advantage to seeking something, rather than just kicking back and not doing anything at all to further understanding, even if the answer is in fact beyond comprehension. This is like asking, why does a plant reach for the sun, if it knows it will never reach it anyway.

I don't see the point in searching for implausible things like a God. We can't generalize all believers as there are varying levels of interest. Many call themselves Christian but never go to church, never pray, seldom ever think about religion, but they call themselves Christian. So they aren't really invested. But those we see who are highly invested often seen frustrated people. Some of the more fervent are quite nasty and insulting. How many times have I been accused of "not getting it"? Countless. When I ask what I'm not getting the believer can't explain it. What they do reveal is patterns of behavior that is groupthink, tribalism, and indoctrination. What have these people found that makes them better people?

Good people tend to be good. Bad people will be bad. Religion doesn't make bad people good.

And it is human imagination that is responsible for every single progress we have made since crawling out of caves millions of years ago. You don't understand this?

And the progress hapvened when people abandonded magic as "reality". That is why the scientific method teaches to eliminate all unnessary assumptions, like religion. Science can't work by assuming a God is the creator, or causing earthquakes, or makes us feel awe. Our progress is due to the discipline of mind that allows educated people to set religion aside to understand reality.

Exactly my point I've been making. But do you not see that that is what you yourself do too?

Explain how I am holding an illusion that I believe is objectively real.

I see a great deal of similarity between creationists and materialists. It's both a type of myopic perception that sees only it's perception of reality as valid, and the rest as just "imagination", not knowing that even that is imagination itself.

This is a flawed equivalency. Creationism is deceptive fraud. They only fool their guilible believers. As I noted we humans cannot progress if we do not have a disiplined approach to understanding what is real, and that is science. Do you really think compromise will be wise and smart? Do you realize science would fail if it allows all sorts of unfactual assumptions? Materialists are searching for what is demonstrably true about reality. Theists with sets of religious assumptions have decided their assumptions are true, and they refuse to acknowledge how they think and believe is not reason or factual.

Creationists are myopic to a set of untrue religious beliefs, and use that to reject objective findings in science. Science aims to understand what is true about the universe we live in.

 

[F1fan]

If experience is not real, then for us, nothing is. All we have of reality is our experience of it.

Masturbating offers you a real sexual experience. The means to have that experience is illusory. Theists can have real physiological experiences too in their religious practices, and the means looks to be the same type of illusion and fantasy as masturbating. I say that because believers can't offer any better explanation. I never hear any theist claim they have an experience with God unless they are focused on having any such experience. If God exists outside of human imagination why aren't believers exveriencing God at the DMV, or at the grocery store, or mowing the lawn?

 

[PureX]

If God exists outside of human imagination why aren't believers exveriencing God at the DMV, or at the grocery store, or mowing the lawn?

The same reason language is just sound until you learn how to interpret it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If God exists, then God can be found.

And if God doesn't exist, what would that be like?

If you decide to permit science to be the last word on everything, that's an ideological choice you make that isn't scientific.

Sure it is, if one is interested in how the world actually works in order to predict and navigate it optimally. There is no other means to discover that than empiricism, which is demonstrably the case.

the limitations of science, that it is one way of knowing amongst many

If there are other ways of knowing that are more than just imagination with no external referent, then one ought to be able to produce ideas that are correct and useful by some other method than empiricism. I'm not aware of any knowledge arrived at any other way. Sure, people make all kinds of claims about spiritual truths and knowledge, for example, but when you ask them what it is, you get some intuition or cherished belief that may be reassuring but is otherwise not useful. I don't call such ideas knowledge.

The failure of non-scientists to understand the limitations of science - what it does and doesn't say - is part of why we have such a problem with science denialism.

The usual reason for science denialism is scientific illiteracy combined with some faith-based view of how the world works contradicted by observation, as with creationists and vaccine and climate deniers.

It also cuts away nuance and transforms human knowledge into a myopic black-and-white endeavor that lacks the very creativity that makes science possible in the first place.

Having an empiricist's view of reality makes one's thinking myopic and black-and-white, and lacking creativity? Many of the greatest writers and artists are critical thinkers.

When science is presented as the be-all and end-all, that forces incompatibility with other ways of knowing that didn't need to happen.

Perhaps you can be more specific. What are these other ways of knowing, and what do they reveal that can be called more than a feeling?

I remember from the last time we interacted, you became angry at this attitude, as if it were disrespectful or unfriendly. I'm sorry if that was the case then or now, but I consider these valid points worth making and thinking about, especially regarding labeling those that don't indulge in such thinking as deficient in some manner as you did with your use of the word myopic, or thinking that being creative is a good way to decide what is true. This position is often accompanied by the word scientism in its derisive meaning, which is meant to demean the unwillingness to engage in uncritical thought in these matters as if that were a mistake. I save my softer thinking for times of reflection, for engaging the arts, or enjoying a sunset with a margarita, not when trying to decide what is true about the world - the kind of thinking that allows me to arrange life to be able to do that more frequently.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If God exists outside of human imagination why aren't believers exveriencing God at the DMV, or at the grocery store, or mowing the lawn?

I would offer God can be experienced every waking and sleeping moment of our lives.

You comparison was totally focuses on material pleasure and these blind us to God. So your comparison was an opposite of what it is to experience our Creator.

God transcends these temporal pleasures of the senses and is not experienced via the material senses, but can indeed very much excite them.

It is by doing away with our own vain imaginations and by being connecting to the source of our rational mind and life, that we start experiencing God.

Jesus offered that the connection required another birth, a birth from the material senses into that of our spiritual reality.

Regards Tony

 

[Quintessence]

@It Aint Necessarily So

While I'm not going to respond point for point to what you wrote I'll give you some recommended reading: Spell of the Sensuous by David Abrams. Or pick some other book in philosophy that covers topics like ontology, epistemology, and phenomenology. If it focuses on philosophy of science, such might be all the more appropriate. If you really actually practice critical thinking, you probably owe it to yourself to do this, but let sleeping bears lie if you prefer. Critical thinking is the bread and butter of philosophy, as it peels back often unstated assumptions to lay them bare in the open. It is not an easy journey nor a quick one and it changes everything and nothing.

 

[Bird123]

And if God doesn't exist, what would that be like?



Sure it is, if one is interested in how the world actually works in order to predict and navigate it optimally. There is no other means to discover that than empiricism, which is demonstrably the case.



If there are other ways of knowing that are more than just imagination with no external referent, then one ought to be able to produce ideas that are correct and useful by some other method than empiricism. I'm not aware of any knowledge arrived at any other way. Sure, people make all kinds of claims about spiritual truths and knowledge, for example, but when you ask them what it is, you get some intuition or cherished belief that may be reassuring but is otherwise not useful. I don't call such ideas knowledge.



The usual reason for science denialism is scientific illiteracy combined with some faith-based view of how the world works contradicted by observation, as with creationists and vaccine and climate deniers.



Having an empiricist's view of reality makes one's thinking myopic and black-and-white, and lacking creativity? Many of the greatest writers and artists are critical thinkers.



Perhaps you can be more specific. What are these other ways of knowing, and what do they reveal that can be called more than a feeling?

I remember from the last time we interacted, you became angry at this attitude, as if it were disrespectful or unfriendly. I'm sorry if that was the case then or now, but I consider these valid points worth making and thinking about, especially regarding labeling those that don't indulge in such thinking as deficient in some manner as you did with your use of the word myopic, or thinking that being creative is a good way to decide what is true. This position is often accompanied by the word scientism in its derisive meaning, which is meant to demean the unwillingness to engage in uncritical thought in these matters as if that were a mistake. I save my softer thinking for times of reflection, for engaging the arts, or enjoying a sunset with a margarita, not when trying to decide what is true about the world - the kind of thinking that allows me to arrange life to be able to do that more frequently.

Won't you be surprised when you Discover that God does exist? Further, if you get that far, I bet you will also be surprised God is not what everyone has been preaching to you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You misunderstood. Behavior resulting from the experience of X is evidence of X.

A belief in X can drive behaviour regardless of the existence of X is more how I'd see it, but I'm interested in what you mean.

So I find myself wondering if you mean this on a more metaphysical level. Like...Jesus exists because people's actions are impacted, the real world is impacted, etc. Something that doesn't exist couldn't impact. Regardless of whether a carpenter named Jesus was nailed to a cross.

Or were you being more literal/material? In which case I'm confused...lol

 

[lewisnotmiller]

All our experiences of reality, are a mediated reality, not what reality actually is.

I'd agree with this, even if I'd probably state it in different terms.
However, I don't believe the subjective nature of reality is the same as saying whatever one perceives or believes to be true, is in fact true.

I might look at the sun and see a burning ball of gas which is wondrous, and someone else might see something divine and worthy of worship, and both 'realities' can be valid.

If a third person comes and suggests the sun is actually the moon, and it lights up because it reflects the moon's rays....
Well...that might be their honest belief, but it's simply not 'true', even allowing that I don't believe in 'Truth'.

How do we know? Ultimately of course, we don't. We never could. We could be living in a simulation. Solipsism might be true. But if we discard those concepts as philosophically lacking in utility, we are left with the fact that subjective truth has boundaries.

People can draw them differently, and still see the coherence and viewpoint of others. But some people don't have consistent or coherent, or considered beliefs at all.

Could I be one of those people? I honestly don't think so. Could I be 'wrong' in my beliefs, including even my most base and simple ones? Absolutely.

 

[F1fan]

I would offer God can be experienced every waking and sleeping moment of our lives.

You offer these types of irrelevant suggestions, and no evidence.

You comparison was totally focuses on material pleasure and these blind us to God. So your comparison was an opposite of what it is to experience our Creator.

No gods are known to exist, so I suggest you are imagining things. You offer no evidence your ideas of God are real.

God transcends these temporal pleasures of the senses and is not experienced via the material senses, but can indeed very much excite them.

More of your vivid imagination. No evidence that you are telling us true statements.

It is by doing away with our own vain imaginations and by being connecting to the source of our rational mind and life, that we start experiencing God.

This is projection as described by psychology. It suggests consciousness that you are doing what you accuse me of doing.

Jesus offered that the connection required another birth, a birth from the material senses into that of our spiritual reality.

Jesus is a character in a religious book.

 

[F1fan]

Won't you be surprised when you Discover that God does exist?

I'm surprised that many otherwise rational people think a God exists, yet they can't offer evidence or any reason why they think this.

Further, if you get that far, I bet you will also be surprised God is not what everyone has been preaching to you.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Look at your manner here, it is passive aggressive behavior. You are asserting something is wrong with those who don't agree with you, and also that you have some special knowledge that rational minds don't have access to. Can you see how this is somewhat disturbing?

Let me ask you point blank, is it a fact that a God exists? Or is the many ideas of Gods something many humans believe exists, and they could be mistaken?

 

[SalixIncendium]

A belief in X can drive behaviour regardless of the existence of X is more how I'd see it, but I'm interested in what you mean.

So I find myself wondering if you mean this on a more metaphysical level. Like...Jesus exists because people's actions are impacted, the real world is impacted, etc. Something that doesn't exist couldn't impact. Regardless of whether a carpenter named Jesus was nailed to a cross.

Or were you being more literal/material? In which case I'm confused...lol

It's bit early, I'm still on my first cup of coffee, and maybe I'm just foggy after my morning mediation, but I'm never really clear on the dichotomy of physical/metaphysical. What category do thoughts fall into?

For something to exist or to be "real," does it need to have a physical, tangible, material presence?

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps instead of saying God could not exist because of this, one should look deeper to Discover why things do exist.

If we knew why things exist (i.e. the universe) then wonderful but we don't, so some say, we don't know so lets attempt to find out, and some say we don't know so god must have done it that's my god by the way, not any other god.

All the secrets of God and the universe stare us in the face every day,

So your god is nature?

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how?

Long enough to evolve enough to develop the technology to allow it

God is hiding nothing. Knowledge awaits Discovery. If one really seeks Truth and Knowledge, maybe it's time to open our eyes, widen our views and see.

Or perhaps just the opposite, widening your view shows shows reality

Everything about God will add up perfectly.

To those who have belief in a god.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

And that is entirely up to you. Thanks for your views, quite interesting.

 

[PureX]

It's bit early, I'm still on my first cup of coffee, and maybe I'm just foggy after my morning mediation, but I'm never really clear on the dichotomy of physical/metaphysical. What category do thoughts fall into?

For something to exist or to be "real," does it need to have a physical, tangible, material presence?

I don't mean to step on this conversation, but metaphysics, I believe, refers to the 'blueprint' both behind physical existence and transcendent of the the physical expression. For example, a brain is the physical expression of a set of possibilities and limitations that we do not yet fully understand or know the origin of, but that shape the nature of existence. While the thoughts produced as a result of that physical expression transcend, by far, the physicality that produces them. To claim that a thought is nothing more than electrochemical interactions in a brain is like claiming language is nothing more than sounds coming from out of a mouth. Metaphysics refers to the whole new range of possibilities that result from the organizing 'blueprint' that dictates the nature of all physical expression, and then transcends it. Life and consciousness both being amazing examples of this.

 

[F1fan]

I don't mean to step on this conversation, but metaphysics, I believe, refers to the 'blueprint' both behind physical existence and transcendent of the the physical expression. For example, a brain is the physical expression of a set of possibilities and limitations that we do not yet fully understand or know the origin of, but that shape the nature of existence.

What evidence is there that any "beyond" the physical is anything real or even plausible? At best metaphysics is dubious speculation and woo-woo. The school of metaphysics in the US has been clever to frame their views by citing science, but then overlaying it with religious jargon.

While the thoughts produced as a result of that physical expression transcend, by far, the physicality that produces them. To claim that a thought is nothing more than electrochemical interactions in a brain is like claiming language is nothing more than sounds coming from out of a mouth.

This is an example of the woo-woo nonsense, and is not only has no evidence but contradicts what is observed. How do thoughts transcend the physical brain? If a racist sits on his couch and thinks anti-Semitic thoughts how do those thoughts transcend his brain?

Do you know other types of animals have thoughts, so do their thoughts also transcend their brains?

Metaphysics refers to the whole new range of possibilities that result from the organizing 'blueprint' that dictates the nature of all physical expression, and then transcends it. Life and consciousness both being amazing examples of this.

It is factless nonsense, just like the example you posted above. All this sort of thinking tells us is that some people are interested in humans being more special than we are. What is motivating this desire?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It's bit early, I'm still on my first cup of coffee, and maybe I'm just foggy after my morning mediation, but I'm never really clear on the dichotomy of physical/metaphysical. What category do thoughts fall into?

For something to exist or to be "real," does it need to have a physical, tangible, material presence?

Heh...you're doing that thing where you ask the problematic question all innocent-like.

It depends, to be honest. Is a concept like justice real? I would argue yes, but it's neither material nor even of broad consensus in terms of it's nature.
My point isn't 'Gods aren't material, so they're not real'. My point is only that people should be somewhat clear and consistent in their claims where possible.

For example, I would readily admit that Jesus has a tangible and material impact on the world. He's as real as justice in that sense. So if you'd like to argue that Jesus is real for that reason, then more power to you. But a lot of people who say Jesus are real aren't arguing it in such as manner. They mean as a literal historical figure, as one part of the trinity, and as a personal Saviour.

You suggested that 'Behavior resulting from the experience of X is evidence of X.'
It might be evidence...since basically every claim of X's existence, or every action referencing X is evidence...but it's not proof, nor even necessarily compelling evidence of X's existence.

My wife's history in mental health case management is clear proof that behaviour resulting from the experience of X does not mean X is 'real'. Unless (as I said) you are talking in a more metaphysical sense. Like justice is real.

Nothing wrong with that. But lots of people making claims about the existence of X are NOT doing so in that manner. That's all. Just trying to get the lay of the land in terms of what you meant.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't mean to step on this conversation, but metaphysics, I believe, refers to the 'blueprint' both behind physical existence and transcendent of the the physical expression. For example, a brain is the physical expression of a set of possibilities and limitations that we do not yet fully understand or know the origin of, but that shape the nature of existence. While the thoughts produced as a result of that physical expression transcend, by far, the physicality that produces them. To claim that a thought is nothing more than electrochemical interactions in a brain is like claiming language is nothing more than sounds coming from out of a mouth. Metaphysics refers to the whole new range of possibilities that result from the organizing 'blueprint' that dictates the nature of all physical expression, and then transcends it. Life and consciousness both being amazing examples of this.

You're more than welcome to step into any of my conversations at any time.

 

[F1fan]

Worth anything to whom? You, me, or the person "inventing" answers?

It depends on the person. For example there is a set of people who are attracted to the Qanon conspiracy theories, even though these answers are absurd nonsense. So that any given group believes some set of answers does not mean these are rational people and the answers valid. Contrast Qanon to students in a physics class learning about what experts understand about the nature of the physical universe. The Qanon group is sloppy, unskilled thinkers while the students are learning how science is a method of thought that follows facts and data to valid conclusions.

Why do you assume such an ordinary person hasn't deferred to science and found no answers there?

It is easy to spot those who reject science and advance implausible ideas as answers. Look at creationists as an example.

Are you of the opinion that science already has all of the answers to explain every individual experience?

No, science is an ongoing investigation. It has a track record of being the nbest method we humans have to answer questions about reality. What do religions offer us in terms of valid answers? They offer many contradictory answers, and none can be validated. Why is Islam more valid than Catholicism? Why is Baha'i more valid than Islam? None of the believers can offer a definitive answer, they will give their personal belief, that's it.

There are new scientific revelations in the last few years in neuroscience that discuss the experiences we are discussing here. Have your read any of Andrew Newberg's work?

I haven't. If there is something relevant that supports your way of belief then I will look at it.

Who would have the best answer to that question? You? Me? Or perhaps the fellow with the rock?

If a fellow wants to worship an ordinary rock and believe it becomes special due to his devotion, that is his business. When he signs on to RF and starts talking about his svecial rock and how much inherent meaning it has in the universe, I will dispute his claims and reduce his behavior down to more factual and likely explanations. The dilemma of human meaning assignment is that we become so invested in the meaning we assign that we forget the meaning comes from us. When we see 10,000 Christians in a megachurch singing along with a choir and praising God we can examine how these people came together with 10,000 personal investments of measning and have a group experience that they believe goes beyond themselves. The insecure human mind, rampant with anxiety and uncertainty, will go along with tribal rituals to feel as if they are more significant than they believe. I won't dispute that these 10,000 don't get off on what they are doing. My question is how many of them are aware of what they are doing, and why they are doing it.