a non-physical thing

[Enmos]

God is after a relationship.

And I welcome it.. where's he at ?

 

[Enmos]

From what I've experienced myself he doesn't come without a sincere invitation. Its consequential and I would encourage you to honestly consider those consequences.

One wonders what state of mind making a sincere invitation would require in the first place.

 

[Doreen]

Which is why you double check and get external verification.

You can't really do that. You can find out if you are 'right' perhaps, but unless you have a team of mind readers it will be very hard to determine how you reached your conclusions.

IOW one can get external verification for the conclusion, but rarely for the process. People often say 'I believe this because.....' and what follows is not at all the reason, however honest the speaker.

 

[Doreen]

It is the start of acceptable evidence. Add replication, falsification and verification and you have a reasonable basis for establishing physical evidence as being true and valid. It is a method which has an establish track record for arriving at reasonable conclusions and for being self correcting when it is in error.

I was aiming at the root of evidence being perception/experience. Is this physical? Or is it virtual?

False evidence. Fanciful evidence. Unsupportable and irreproducible conclusions.

So the dichotomy is
false vs. physical
Physical is a synonym for true?

That claim is often made by theists, but it has yet to be substantiated.

I'm not sure why you pulled that piece out of context.

[You are putting the cart before the horse. Do you have trouble distinguishing dream time from wake time?

Absolutely. Later on I can see that my very real experiences in dreaming are not applicable to my waking time in the same ways as my waking time experiences are to each other. But yes, I have trouble. I have lucid dreamed and spent time mastering that for a while, and then I could often tell I was dreaming. And then I could also, apropos the topic, have repeatable experiences at will. But I slacked off that and am not aware it is this area of experience rather than the other.

They are both "amassing of perceptions or sense data or experiences that are repeatable"

Not generally, the repeatable issue.

and yet you manage to figure out which is backed by reality and which is not.

They are real in different ways. But this hardly refutes my point. I am saying the basis of all our evidence is perception/experience. And is experience physical? And what does labeling it so mean? What are we distinguishing it from? Isn't something physical merely something that can be experienced?

What we call physical reality has its own substance independent of our perception of it and we are able to reasonably distinguish its perception from perceptions which are not based in reality.

This latter point has a wide array of exceptions. Many perceptions that were dismissed have turned out to be connected to physical things, by any definition of that term. Reasonable acts of distinguishing have been quite wrong. And we cannot project from what is verifiable now to what will be later. And it would be foolish to restrict ourselves to only believing things that are verifiable now. Any manager must make decisions based on beliefs that are not verifiable. And the good ones will be random guesses despite this.

 

[wesmorris]

I think this is a key point which causes a lot of difficulty where it need not if we can come to a simple and reasonable acceptance of the normal meaning of the words used.

Non physical things have no physical evidence and therefor cannot be said to exist.

My problem I'm sure, but when I read this I think to do it and hear "thinking can't be said to exist" which contradicts what I'm doing to understand it which sets off some alarm in my mind.

The nature of an existent thing qua thing is that it has physical extension and therefor there is physical evidence of its existence. No physical evidence = no physical existence. So god is not a thing in and of itself.

Typically thinking, yes. I think though that this precludes a deeper understanding of nature, as it must ignore all that fantasies inspire like the fabrication of "things" like cups. Seems to miss a big part of what seems to be real to me. Science types (myself included sort of) seem to generally completely overlook all this - basically the same way you dismiss it later in your post as "a dime a dozen" or basically useless as it is not 'real'.

Now we generally admit a secondary form of existence, that of identifiable patterns or distinct organizations of things. For example, the pattern we call the Mona Lisa is recognizable as a distinct entity independent of the substrate which forms the pattern, be it paint or elections or ink.

In this case the concepts of god, while vague and varied from group to group, are distinguishable as a particular set of concepts. I don't think an atheist would take exception to god existing as a concept which finds instances in the various believers and writings.

Well not a bright one, but of course anyone can lay whatever apparently retarded claim they like.

Now the actual point of contention is whether or not this concept of god has any extension outside the beliefs of those who form it.

Which for me warrants contemplation of "are ideas discovered or created"? But of course that's a different thread.

When a believer says there god is "real" that is the essence of the claim they are making. They are saying that in spite of not having any actual physical extension or existence, their god has some extraordinary existence outside their concept of it.

Well I agree wholly that it is an irrational claim, but out of politeness or respect, have learned to allow for the possibility that I'm completely irrational to begin with, or that there can be multiple, contradictory rational perspectives - as I cannot see through another's eyes, etc. I cannot be their mind, so maybe they know something I don't and or can't.

It is hardly a remarkable request on the part of the atheist to be shown proof of this existence more substantial that "I just believe" or "its in my book of Jewish myths."

Well it's not a remarkable request but could possibly be a rather remarkable task. I think there are significant repurcussions in the contrast between any of the individualized conceptual inter-relationships that comprise interacting minds. The 'conceptual geometry" (if you will) can be so foreign as to inhibit productive interaction.

Mere concepts are a dime a dozen and human history is littered with myths of gods which turned out just to be stories.

It's evolution baby. I'd say those stories provide all kinds of tangible results.

Ah, how about something like this since I'm playing devil's advocate:

God the idea is an evolutionary tool serving two main functions:

- Bonding of the tribe (some reason for people to act in the best interest of others sometimes)

- "higher" purpose (while the purpose itself may be pure fantasy, the actions inspired via that fantasy are quite tangible)

So since both of these fantastically inspired functions have tangible results, the fantasies impact what is and as such, serve as evidence of the reality of the fantasy.

Lol. So by that reasoning, one involved in the reality created by such fantasies would attribute ontological existence to fantastical source of what appears to be their reality, and someone else may not see the same aspects of why what is, is and therefore be utterly unconvinced of anything to do with the fantasy in question.

I'm too tired to know if that made sense. I'll read it again later and correct if necessary, pardon. Just trying to have a little fun thinking about all this, one of my favorite topics.

If you want to convince a rational person or lay claim to being rational yourself, you need proof that your concept of god points to an actual god.

But proof lies in an individual's experience and can't necessarily be shared.

Anything less is a waste of time no matter how you feel or believe.

Bah, I think it's rather arrogant to tell people how to best spend their time. But it's also rather arrogant of me to argue with someone so obviously and consistently rational as yourself, so I suppose we're both arrogant. Well, me at least.

 

[lightgigantic]

The religious are always on about authority and "ultimate authority" is soooo sexy. No ultimate authority is so boringly actual.

Your inability to recognize the authority of the mind and senses (which is kind of first base for any sort of spiritual discipline, regardless of one's take on reality) makes me wonder about your self stated expertise in matters of introspection

funny thing that. the mind compensates and eventually you don't see everything as red.

really?
If a person with red glasses on starts seeing blues and greens they probably need to seek medical advice.

Also if you wear glasses that flip everything, your mind will flip it back after a while.

The mind can certainly work with memory, but that can't do the trick when observation is required.

eg

How unfortunate! Look deeper.

Of course its the nature of a materialist to seek fortune in looking deeper into such things ..... seeing or experiencing the result of such endeavors might inspire others to look elsewhere however .....

 

[lightgigantic]

No. Not everyone. Maybe you should just speak for yourself.

If you have the experience of putting on red glasses and not seeing objects as red its probably due to your experience with a benevolent pharmacist or something
:shrug:

 

[Doreen]

But proof lies in an individual's experience and can't necessarily be shared.

Excellent and rarely acknowledged!
I say 'You should believe___________'
and you can come up with all sorts of demands for proof.
I say 'I believe__________'
and 1) I don gotta prove nuttin and 2) I can be right on the money despite not bein able to prove nuttin or havin such interest.

 

[lightgigantic]

swarm

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
o...k...
”
You think theists have the market on introspection? I'm by nature introspective and have had to work on balencing that out. I'm the sort who actually enjoys long silent meditation retreats. What of it?

“
well, what are you working with then (since you have lots of experience on the subject)?
”
I approach the topic with nothing. All compound objects are empty inherant suchness. I accept the universe, and myself, as it is without further need for justification by anything "beyond" this.

If you categorize the universe and "myself" as nothing, what the hell prompts the need for introspection?

“
Now might be a good opportunity to explain how you hold an impersonal view of consciousness yet don't subscribe to a reductionist paradigm of life .....
”
I hold what is sometimes refered to as a "soft dualist" or connectionist stance. I.e. there are inherantly irreducible properties which arrise from the complex interactions (patterns) of the physical substrate. Thus no matter how well you understand particle physics, there are aspects to the Mona Lisa which cannot be explaned in a particle physics model or even from any understanding of any particular physical instance of the Mona Lisa as an object in and of itself.

So IOW you have a reductionist paradigm with epistemological limitations as opposed to ontological ones?

However I find no evidence of hard dualism as might be proposed by your averaged theist making claims about non physical substances like souls which are supposed to have existence in and of themselves.

If you have a reductionist paradigm with epistemological limitations, you are also plagued by identical problems of evidence.
:shrug:

“
I guess that leaves you with the question of "what is desire?"
”
No. I have direct experience of it just fine.

You have direct experience of the inherently irreducible properties which arise from the complex interactions (patterns) of the physical substrate that surround desire?

“
what specific means do you adopt to deal with the mind and senses?
”
Understanding/insight, learning/knowledge, compassion/love, focus and attention, depending on the specific aspect which needs to be dealt with.

O...K

so what is it exactly that you are understanding or have insight on in regard to the mind and senses?

Maybe a better way to ask this question is how do you view the mind and senses in relation to the self.

“
leaves one with the question of what is the self
”
Who is asking?

According to you, the inherently irreducible properties which arise from the complex interactions (patterns) of the physical substrate

“
what is the phenomena of its knowing
”
Did you eat today?

sure
I'm not sure how this relates to your dressing "desire" as some sort of superficial endearment of selfhood though ...

“
why do gross materialists place eternal values on a temporary object?
”
Maybe you should ask one?

I thought it was obvious.
Because they have no scope for eternal objects.

IOW materialist or spiritualist, there is no scope for avoiding the desire to ascribe eternal values to things (although the common way of dealing with this question is to place desire as some sort of superficial endearment that is no where near as valid as the inherently irreducible properties which arise from the complex interactions (patterns) of the physical substrate )

“
conditioned life tends to ...
”
Oh please! "Tends?"

Could you make your objections weaker and more vague?

Actually it was "tends to exclusively" .... which seems pretty precise to me
“

If you didn't have some theoretical understanding of...
”
But since I do, that is a non issue.

I'm not sure how this helps your argument that methodology can stand independent from theory

So far you offer nothing but snobbery for your failure.

 

[lightgigantic]

Signal

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“

“
hence holding the mind as the fundamental substance of reality poses dire consequences
”
But what choice is there?
”
the choice to accept that one's mind is not the ultimate authority.

No need to get terribly esoteric about this. Everyone has the experience of being pushed to the hilt to fulfill the desires of one's mind and then being dragged over the coals by the very same entity for doing so.
”
“

“
To someone who holds the mind as fundamental, the choice to hold something else as fundamental still lays in the realm of holding the mind as fundamental - and so for such a person, nothing has changed.
”
much like a person wearing red glasses sees everything as red
”
It appears one would actually have to surpass one's mind to get beyond that problem! That one would have to get well beyond mano-maya.

It seems to me that one also has to have some faith that there is another reality, one where one's mind is not or does not try to be the ruler of one's life; faith that one's life will not fall apart if one doesn't presume to have full control over it. And that that reality is worth more than the current one.

there is the analogy of the horse and chariot pulled by five horses in regards to tself.
The mind is the reins and the driver is the intelligence (who in conditioned life wears a blindfold) and the passenger is the self.

The idea is that intelligence (which is basically memory) can start one on the way.

For instance, even the recognition that the mind is a merciless master is sufficient to start many an impersonalist on the path, even though they have no scope for any sort of other nature of self or whatever.

Of course the personalist has recourse to an easier path, since the self isn't shipped off wholesale.

“
Actually one tends to finish with pranomaya when one realizes that there is no scope for security or enjoyment within the realm of matter
”
Which is why people serious about philosophy don't mind being poor?

The idea is that enjoyment in matter should not be the goal of the human form of life (more details in SB 5.5.1 )


“

“
Young people nowadays in schools sooner learn about "critical thinking" than having their physical survival ensured.
”
I think there is a wider social context of industrial consumerism which places absurd requirements for the procurement of a little food and shelter
”
That too. I meant that some intellectual sophistication is necessary to be eligible for even very simple jobs. In many countries, one has to have at least a high-school diploma to be eligible to get any kind of job. One has to go to school, do homework, pass exams and so on for years - even just to be eligible for a job that one's illiterate grand-grandfather was eligible for.

education too has become an industry


“

“
Many people who are unemployed or otherwise struggle materially, venture into investigating spirituality and philosophy.
Would you say that this is backwards, that an investigation of spirituality in such a context of material strife is likely going to lead to unsatisfactory results?
”
If you look at the four types of people who begin spiritual life (as mentioned as the four pious types in the gita), you see that material strife can catalyze a persons spiritual initiative.
”
Sure. But given their material strife, there is no guarantee that they will be able to keep up with their spiritual pursuits. So one might wonder whether it is worth it to even try to begin with those pursuits.

given that we are born with nothing and die with nothing, the spiritual perspective is that there is no gain in material perfection.

Ironically (BG 6.41) an unsuccessful practitioner goes to the material heavens while an almost successful practitioner comes back here in the human form. In all cases, desire is the vehicle of movement for (!!!)

 

[swarm]

You can't really do that.

I can't?

You can find out if you are 'right' perhaps

Actually finding out that you aren't wrong is easier, but how is this "can't really do that?"

but unless you have a team of mind readers it will be very hard to determine how you reached your conclusions.

We have a means of envoking ideas in each other's minds called "language."

IOW one can get external verification for the conclusion, but rarely for the process.

I detail my process, let you replicate it, we compare.

People often say 'I believe this because.....' and what follows is not at all the reason, however honest the speaker.

That is why we find out instead of people getting away with "I believe..."

 

[swarm]

I was aiming at the root of evidence being perception/experience. Is this physical? Or is it virtual?

The virtual sits atop the physical.

Perception is not the root of experience. It is the means.

So the dichotomy is false vs. physical
Physical is a synonym for true?

I would characterize it as actual and fanciful. True is really just how accurately we are describing something.

Absolutely.

Sorry if I'm dubious about this claim. So how often do you miss a meal because you dream you ate already?

Do you find yourself walking into walls you dreamed had doors?

I could often tell I was dreaming.

While you were dreaming, but I doubt the doubt lingers past waking. But be that as it may, it doesn't change the process for finding out. In fact most lucid dreaming techs I know of actually involve a "reality check" to clue you in to the dream state.

I am saying the basis of all our evidence is perception/experience.

Nope, that is just the means.

And is experience physical?

yep.

And what does labeling it so mean?

It has physical extention, mass/energy and occupies a unique time/space vector.

What are we distinguishing it from?

Fanciful things which have only the concept, but no actual referent for that concept. Like unicorns.

Isn't something physical merely something that can be experienced?

Often, but not necessarily.

This latter point has a wide array of exceptions.

Not particularly that I'm aware of. Could you supply more details?

Many perceptions that were dismissed have turned out to be connected to physical things, by any definition of that term.

Again not particularly that I'm aware of. Could you supply more details?

Reasonable acts of distinguishing have been quite wrong.

I never said it was perfect, hence the emphasis on verification. On occation we get things wrong and we know they were wrong because we try to verify them and the verification process pointed out the error.

And we cannot project from what is verifiable now to what will be later.

Actual for many things we have a pretty good idea. Enough that I bet you are fully expecting to find reality just where you left it when you wake up in the morning.

And it would be foolish to restrict ourselves to only believing things that are verifiable now.

Actually it would not be in this case. Fanciful conjectures are very cheap. I can invent gods as fast as I can type. Qerg, Bwer, Umun, Wepo... by limiting ourselves to what can be verified we have a means of eliminating the deluge of fanciful notions pretending to be about reality and we shift the burden of proof back on the person making the claim.

We aren't discussing management, but a good manager is going to get every fact he can before going out on a limb and guessing.

 

[swarm]

I think to do it and hear "thinking can't be said to exist"

Thinking is quite the physical activity and can be monitored directly and even decoded to a degree so we can see what you are thinking.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026875.900-mindreading-software-reveals-brain-images.html

it must ignore all that fantasies inspire like the fabrication of "things" like cups.

Not at all. Basing actual activities around recreating a vision isn't a problem. But a painting of a unicorn still isn't an actual unicorn. It is a real painting of a fanciful object without actual referent in reality.

seem to generally completely overlook all this

You underestimate my position.

basically useless as it is not 'real'.

I've made no utilitarian claims so far.

anyone can lay whatever apparently retarded claim they like.

I'll take that as agreement that concepts of god, as concepts, aren't a problem for you as an atheist.

"are ideas discovered or created"?

I don't see the necessity of it being either/or.

Well I agree wholly that it is an irrational claim

Good. No need to equivocate with me.

Well it's not a remarkable request but could possibly be a rather remarkable task.

That seems fitting for such a remarkable claim.

I'd say those stories provide all kinds of tangible results.

As stories sure. As Zeus, no not really.

God the idea

I already granted god as just an idea.

these fantastically inspired functions have tangible results

Any old result is not at issue. Specifically claiming god and then expecting that to mean an actual god without any resultant actual god in evidence is THE result in question.

Its irrelevant if the concept of god leads you to strangle people, break their bones and then bury them in small graves. (Yes that is an actual result of the god concept.)

evidence of the reality of the fantasy.

I've already granted the reality of the fantasy as a fantasy.

I'm too tired to know if that made sense.

Not particularly, but it looked good.

But proof lies in an individual's experience and can't necessarily be shared.

Oh, like you aren't able to share this experience with me?

Bah, I think it's rather arrogant to tell people how to best spend their time.

Like that just did by implication?

The point is not that any particular person is the ultimate in reason. The point is reason give a means for verification, error correction and other nifty things which alleviate the need for any person to be the ultimate in reason while still arriving at good results.

I'm trying to be as generous as I can here. If they are willing to say "I believe in god because I'm a loony" then I'm willing to let that go. But reason and rational have come to mean something and I see no reason to grant a special exception for theists and I do see every reason not to do so.

 

[Enmos]

The mind can certainly work with memory, but that can't do the trick when observation is required.

eg

I don't understand.. ?

 

[swarm]

Your inability to recognize the authority of the mind and senses (which is kind of first base for any sort of spiritual discipline, regardless of one's take on reality) makes me wonder about your self stated expertise in matters of introspection

Who said I was on first base or that your assumptions were the result of my introspections?

Keep working and you will find the mind and the senses are not the authority.

If a person with red glasses on starts seeing blues and greens they probably need to seek medical advice.

You don't spend a lot of time in sunglasses do you? The eyes and brain are quite flexible.

The mind can certainly work with memory, but that can't do the trick when observation is required.

You've neglected your education in psychology. If you put glasses on that flip the world upside down, after a while your brain will flip it back right side up. Take the glasses off and everything is upside down again until the brain flips it back.
George M. Stratton. Some preliminary experiements on vision. Psychological Review, 1896.

Of course its the nature of a materialist to seek fortune in looking deeper into such things ..... seeing or experiencing the result of such endeavors might inspire others to look elsewhere however .....

Do you even remember how to be forthright or speak directly?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Everyone has the experience of being pushed to the hilt to fulfill the desires of one's mind and then being dragged over the coals by the very same entity for doing so.
much like a person wearing red glasses sees everything as red ”

No. Not everyone. Maybe you should just speak for yourself.

If you have the experience of putting on red glasses and not seeing objects as red its probably due to your experience with a benevolent pharmacist or something

That makes absolutely no sense as a response to what I said.
Perhaps your inability to make sense or properly respond to what was said is due to your friendly neighborhood covert chemist.

Do you even remember how to be forthright or speak directly?

When did he???

 

[wesmorris]

"Fanciful things which have only the concept, but no actual referent for that concept. Like unicorns"

Isn't "tangible" a concept?

I guess to me, even the tangible can seem like nothing more than conceptual at its root. If I'm engaged in a physical activity, what is "real" generally seems less conceptual, but If I'm thinking about thinking and such, the opposite becomes more prevalent.

 

[wesmorris]

The virtual sits atop the physical.

The physical can only be 'known' through the virtual. In fact I think the act of perception renders everything discussable, virtual. Even if you can observe what someone else is thinking, that doesn't necessarily mean you know what the thoughts mean to them.

 

[wynn]

hence holding the mind as the fundamental substance of reality poses dire consequences

But what choice is there?

the choice to accept that one's mind is not the ultimate authority.

How can such a choice be made effective?

How can such a choice be acted upon?

I have intellectually decided that the mind is not a good instance to hold as a fundamental substance of reality. What do I do next?

The idea is that intelligence (which is basically memory) can start one on the way.

How? By engaging it in some different way, by continually feeding it information contrary to what it has been used to so far, even if it doesn't actually believe that information ...?

For instance, even the recognition that the mind is a merciless master is sufficient to start many an impersonalist on the path, even though they have no scope for any sort of other nature of self or whatever.

Of course the personalist has recourse to an easier path, since the self isn't shipped off wholesale.

For better or worse, I am an impersonalist. I suffer. I don't want to suffer. What can I do to overcome impersonalism?

The idea is that enjoyment in matter should not be the goal of the human form of life (more details in SB 5.5.1 )

Noted.

education too has become an industry

An industry of producing impersonalists ...

Ironically (BG 6.41) an unsuccessful practitioner goes to the material heavens while an almost successful practitioner comes back here in the human form. In all cases, desire is the vehicle of movement for (!!!)

Desire is the vehicle of movement for ... the embodied soul / the achievement of the highest perfection ...?


(oh, and that is a lovely formulation there with the (!!!) ) )

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't understand.. ?

a colourblind person might be able to remember which number appears in which sequences but that doesn't make them any less colourblind