. - Understanding religious delusion

[ChloeB]

I think it is fair to say that if a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it - it does make a sound. For one thing the other trees in the forest are witnesses to the event, and in a fundamental Quantum mechanical sense this is all that is needed. The subjective element comes in what "makes a sound" actually means. In this case I think it is fairly obvious that there is a general consensus about what sound is and what a falling tree sounds like.

However there are a multitude of examples where that subjective agreement is absent and especially where abstract concepts are concerned.

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say when I said the subjective all matches up, a general consensus, that is the factor that determines what objective reality is. And when that agreement is absent, we call it subjective reality. Is that correct?

[Guest]

Thanks, that's what I was trying to say when I said the subjective all matches up, a general consensus, that is the factor that determines what objective reality is. And when that agreement is absent, we call it subjective reality. Is that correct?

In my definition "objective reality" is what actually is and what exists outside of our experience of it. "Subjective reality" is what we sense and think about that "objective reality". Since our brains are not infinite and the objective reality is - the map we hold within our heads can never in any sense be a perfect representation of the external "objective reality". Most of our subjective ideas about the objective reality are simplified formulas of understanding with most of the refinements of the real stripped out. Very few natural processes are actually well modelled by science, only those mechanical products of mind (such as the computer) are mostly predictable - simply because we have deliberately controlled enough of the variables to make their behaviour consistent within themselves - this is unlike almost all real world processes.

Consensual shared reality can never be assumed to be objective reality. It is simply a commonly accepted version of subjectivity. Ultimately we can never really know objective reality. When people believed that the centre of the universe was the earth - it never made the earth the centre, it simply shaped the way in which people thought about things. So even when a subjective experience is shaped by millions of people, it is no more objective in an absolute sense, than a belief in the spaghetti monster.

The upshot of it is that science suggests that we "sense" four dimensions of a 11 dimensional universe. All we can sense is the effects those 11 dimensions have on our four perceivable ones - we may never acquire the tools to measure those missing 7 dimensions and yet they are intrinsic to the objective reality we inhabit. If we accept this model then we will never "know" most of the objective reality and it will be impossible to know how divergent our model is from the actual reality - we will live in a subjective shadow of the real.

The interesting upshot of all this is if we need 11 dimensions to describe our sensed 4 dimensions - how can we ever know if they are real. Have we just created an imaginary reality equally as preposterous as that of religion. Science is firmly moving into the realm of metaphysics. For me this is why I find the concepts of dark matter and dark energy to be beyond the pail - because they are products of a model which in a very real sense can never be verified. The only slight advantage over religion is if those mental models produce consistent and measurable results.

Ultimately however everything I have just written can only really be said to be my subjective ideas about the real world. I know for a fact that when Bertram Russell attempted to prove mathematics from first principles - he built his towering philosophical edifice on a few unacknowledged assumptions. He effectively failed in his attempt to prove the universal validity of mathematics to model the universe. I suspect that almost all I actually "know" is fundamentally based on such axiomatic assumptions which cannot ultimately be proven to be real at all. As such everything I "know" I strongly suspect to be wrong to some extent. I firmly believe that it is a huge mistake to accept anything we think we know as real, and we can only ultimately consider our known as a working hypothesis which is only ever as useful as it remains actually useful and not an impediment to progress into greater understanding. This would be my major criticism of religion, that it has been adequately shown to be flawed as a model of the world and continuing to accept it is a gross impediment to a greater approximation to what might be considered real.

Br Cornerlius

Edited September 14, 2010 by Guest

[ChloeB]

In my definition "objective reality" is what actually is and what exists outside of our experience of it. "Subjective reality" is what we sense and think about that "objective reality". Since our brains are not infinite and the objective reality is - the map we hold within our heads can never in any sense be a perfect representation of the external "objective reality". Most of our subjective ideas about the objective reality are simplified formulas of understanding with most of the refinements of the real stripped out. Very few natural processes are actually well modelled by science, only those mechanical products of mind (such as the computer) are mostly predictable - simply because we have deliberately controlled enough of the variables to make their behaviour consistent within themselves - this is unlike almost all real world processes.

Consensual shared reality can never be assumed to be objective reality. It is simply a commonly accepted version of subjectivity. Ultimately we can never really know objective reality. When people believed that the centre of the universe was the earth - it never made the earth the centre, it simply shaped the way in which people though about things. So even when a subjective experience is shaped by millions of people, it is no more objective in an absolute sense, than a belief in the spaghetti monster.

The upshot of it is that science suggests that we "sense" four dimensions of a 11 dimensional universe. All we can sense is the effects those 11 dimensions have on our four perceivable ones - we may never acquire the tools to measure those missing 7 dimensions and yet they are intrinsic to the objective reality we inhabit. If we accept this model then we will never "know" most of the objective reality and it will be impossible to know how divergent our model is from the actual reality - we will live in a subjective shadow of the real.

The interesting upshot of all this is if we need 11 dimensions to describe our sensed 4 dimensions - how can we ever know if they are real. Have we just created an imaginary reality equally as preposterous as that of religion. Science is firmly moving into the realm of metaphysics. For me this is why I find the concepts of dark matter and dark energy to be beyond the pail - because they are products of a model which in a very real sense can never be verified. The only slight advantage over religion is if those mental models produce consistent and measurable results.

Ultimately however everything I have just written can only really be said to be my subjective ideas about the real world. I know for a fact that when Bertram Russell attempted to prove mathematics from first principles - he built his towering philosophical edifice on a few unacknowledged assumptions. He effectively failed in his attempt to prove the universal validity of mathematics to model the universe. I suspect that almost all I actually "know" is fundamentally based on such axiomatic assumptions which cannot ultimately be proven to be real at all. As such everything I "know" I strongly suspect to be wrong to some extent. I firmly believe that it is a huge mistake to accept anything we think we know as real, and we can only ultimately consider our known as a working hypothesis which is only ever as useful as it remains actually useful and not an impediment to progress into greater understanding. This would be my major criticism of religion, that it has been adequately shown to be flawed as a model of the world and continuing to accept it is a gross impediment to a greater approximation to what might be considered real.

Br Cornerlius

Thanks again; all this makes sense. My problem is when I start to really think about it that I get tripped up. I think what I'm most confused about is Mara's comment that "agreed collective illusions remain illusions no matter what - they are fully subjective until they acquire an objective confirmation." I'm not really sure exactly what that objective confirmation is. But what you said that "ultimately we can never really know objective reality", I agree, I don't see how we can. Man, my brain hurts.

[Daughter of the Nine Moons]

First of all, MW - you have EDITED my post when quoting. If you do this once again I would have to report you. Objectively I mean.

@Marabod, Really, you have been around here long enough that I shouldn't have to be repeating myself. If you have an issue with a poster, then take it to PM. If you find something that violates the TOS please hit the report button.

@Mr Walker, if you tamper/change the content of posts you are quoting you can expect at the very least a warning. [even if its only by adding an emoticon]

[Jor-el]

Come now all of you, this is semantics and each of you are demonstrating that the fish can only be fried in your fire and not that of the others...

It all comes back to what I have said, there is absolutely nothing that can be qualified as objective... you have all chosen to ignore this in your views because it will undermine you arguments.

I will repeat what one of the qualified members of the scientific community you admire so much has stated in his experiments on this very issue...

Without observers, nothing exists.

Since everything said is said by an observer to another observer, and since objects (entities, things) arise in language, we cannot operate with objects (entities or things) as if they existed outside the distinctions of distinctions that constitute them. Furthermore, as entities in language, objects are brought forth as explanatory elements in the explanation of the operational coherences of the happening of living in which languaging takes place. Without observers nothing exists, and with observers everything that exists exists in explanations.

Without observers nothing can be said, nothing can be explained, nothing can be claimed,... in fact, without observers nothing exists, because existence is specified in the operation of distinction of the observer. For epistemological rasons, we ask for a substratum that could provide an idependent ultimate justification or validation of distinguishability, but, for ontological reasons, such a substratum remains beyond our reach as observers. All that we can say ontologically about the substratum that we need for epistemological reasons, is that its permits what it permits, and that it permits all the operational coherences that we bring forth in the happening of living as we exist in language.

Ontology of Observing by Humberto Maturana

The Tree in the Woods

George Berkeley once mused, "if a tree fell in the forest and nobody heard it, would it make a sound?" Answers may be:

a. Yes, because acoustic phenomena are self-existent, independent of an observer.

b. No, because perceived sound is dependent on an observer.

c. No, because without an observer, there would not even be the acoustic phenomena.

d. No, because nothing exists without an observer; no tree, no forest, no universe.

e. No, because nothing exists without an observer. Actually, if mankind is not observed, then we do not even exist if nobody was around to observe our creation. (uh-oh!)

Either 1) reality is self-existent, 2) we fail to distinguish reality from its perception, 3) we think we make reality, 4) we think of ourselves as the center of existence, or 5) never go down a deserted path, because if you are ever unobserved...

There is actually a very simple answer to this famous question: yes the sound exists, because God heard it.

Schrödinger's Cat

A challenge to the observer independence of reality has come from the world of atomic physics. Electrons appear as waves (without just one location) as long as one does not try to determine their exact position. When one does so, then they appear to act as particles with only one location, and the wave behavior mysteriously vanishes.

Erwin Schrödinger's cat analogy illustrates this paradox. Suppose a cat, a sealed vial of cyanide, a radioactive particle, a Geiger counter, and a vial-smashing device were all in an opaque box. If the Geiger detects the decay of the particle, the device releases the cyanide and kills the cat. Would the cat be dead or alive? Some would say the particle, and thus the cat, would be in a "half-way" state until the second someone opened the box. In other words, a random event remains only a probability until it is observed

There are three problems with this reasoning. First, the cat observes its own existence, and would not think it was half-way alive. Second, would the opening of the box event occur until somebody observed the observer? Maybe he's in a half-way state too. Finally, if nobody observed the cat, and the cat was not observing the vial, would the vial breaking event never occur?

Schrödinger himself realized his analogy is absurd on a macro level. Lightning still strikes people, even when no one is watching. However, why should this even happen to subatomic particles?

------------------------

Some things, such as beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Most things are not. Uranus, oil reserves, and atoms do not cease to exist when nobody looks at them. They existed prior to their discovery, for one cannot discover non-existent things.

If unobserved objects did not exist, then it’s a good thing the earth rotates. —because if everybody stopped looking at the planets for a second, would they cease to exist? Should you make sure you are always observed, so that you will never vanish? —you probably get the point.

So western philosophies say reality is self-existent and independent of all observers. Scientists in general believed this, –until recently. While it is easy to come up with real examples that "break" many eastern philosophies, quantum mechanics has produced examples that "break" most western philosophies. While these examples have only be observed in subatomic particles, nobody can explain why this even happens to them.

So science, and observation do not bode well for the theory of objectivity as it has been portrayed on this thread by some of you, as a matter of fact it completely undermines it.

So think upon this... we live in a virtual universe where the appearance of reality is but smoke made by the fire.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Jor-el

[MARAB0D]

@Marabod, Really, you have been around here long enough that I shouldn't have to be repeating myself. If you have an issue with a poster, then take it to PM. If you find something that violates the TOS please hit the report button.

@Mr Walker, if you tamper/change the content of posts you are quoting you can expect at the very least a warning. [even if its only by adding an emoticon]

Point taken; it is just I do not have any issue with MW, I was only feeling a bit offended by the editing, as that emoticon reflects HIS view on the OP, not mine. I did not mean to report him anyhow though. He was just feeling a bit playful, I guess.

[mklsgl]

You make it sound as if associative logic is flawed. It is not. I also use analytical logic but i use many forms of intelligences as well. It is a right brain way of thinking and works in conjunction with both lateral thinking and creative intelligence. Naturally it should be complemented by analytical logic, but if you limit yourself to left brain thinking or pure analytic logic your truths can only be half truths

Are you perhaps being influenced by the analytical philosophical movement, which began with Russel and Moore. Or are you thinking purely scientific analytical methodologies.

Hey Mr Walker, this is the definition of 'associative logic': associative logic--the logic of dreams, of fiction, of those times when our minds are free to wander, and of those generative, free-flowing conversations that lead us seemingly, yet not entirely far afield from where we started.

[+Sherapy]

<br>Come now all of you, this is semantics and each of you are demonstrating that the fish can only be fried in your fire and not that of the others...<br><br>It all comes back to what I have said, there is absolutely nothing that can be qualified as objective... you have all chosen to ignore this in your  views because it will undermine you arguments.<br><br>I will repeat what one of the qualified members of the scientific community you admire so much has stated in his experiments on this very issue...<br><br><font color="#ff0000"><b>Without observers, nothing exists.</b></font><br><br>Since everything said is said by an observer to another observer, and since objects (entities, things) arise in language, we cannot operate with objects (entities or things) as if they existed outside the distinctions of distinctions that constitute them. Furthermore, as entities in language, objects are brought forth as explanatory elements in the explanation of the operational coherences of the happening of living in which languaging takes place. Without observers nothing exists, and with observers everything that exists exists in explanations. <br><br>Without observers nothing can be said, nothing can be explained, nothing can be claimed,... in fact, without observers nothing exists, because existence is specified in the operation of distinction of the observer. For epistemological rasons, we ask for a substratum that could provide an idependent ultimate justification or validation of distinguishability, but, for ontological reasons, such a substratum remains beyond our reach as observers. All that we can say ontologically about the substratum that we need for epistemological reasons, is that its permits what it permits, and that it permits all the operational coherences that we bring forth in the happening of living as we exist in language. <br><br><br><a href="http://www.inteco.cl/articulos/004/doc_ing9.htm" target="_blank" class="bbc_url" title="External link">Ontology of Observing by Humberto Maturana</a><br><br><b>The Tree in the Woods</b><br><br>George Berkeley once mused, "if a tree fell in the forest and nobody heard it, would it make a sound?" Answers may be:<br><br>a. Yes, because acoustic phenomena are self-existent, independent of an observer.<br><br>b. No, because perceived sound is dependent on an observer.<br><br>c. No, because without an observer, there would not even be the acoustic phenomena.<br><br>d. No, because nothing exists without an observer; no tree, no forest, no universe.<br><br>e. No, because nothing exists without an observer. Actually, if mankind is not observed, then we do not even exist if nobody was around to observe our creation. (uh-oh!)<br><br><br>Either 1) reality is self-existent, 2) we fail to distinguish reality from its perception, 3) we think we make reality, 4) we think of ourselves as the center of existence, or 5) never go down a deserted path, because if you are ever unobserved...<br><br> <img src="http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/happy.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt="">  <i>There is actually a very simple answer to this famous question: yes the sound exists, because God heard it.</i> <img src="http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif" class="bbc_emoticon" alt=""> <br><br><b>Schrödinger's Cat</b><br><br>A challenge to the observer independence of reality has come from the world of atomic physics. Electrons appear as waves (without just one location) as long as one does not try to determine their exact position. When one does so, then they appear to act as particles with only one location, and the wave behavior mysteriously vanishes.<br><br>Erwin Schrödinger's cat analogy illustrates this paradox. Suppose a cat, a sealed vial of cyanide, a radioactive particle, a Geiger counter, and a vial-smashing device were all in an opaque box. If the Geiger detects the decay of the particle, the device releases the cyanide and kills the cat. Would the cat be dead or alive? Some would say the particle, and thus the cat, would be in a "half-way" state until the second someone opened the box. In other words, a random event remains only a probability until it is observed<br><br>There are three problems with this reasoning. First, the cat observes its own existence, and would not think it was half-way alive. Second, would the opening of the box event occur until somebody observed the observer? Maybe he's in a half-way state too. Finally, if nobody observed the cat, and the cat was not observing the vial, would the vial breaking event never occur?<br><br>Schrödinger himself realized his analogy is absurd on a macro level. Lightning still strikes people, even when no one is watching. However, why should this even happen to subatomic particles?<br><br>------------------------<br><br>Some things, such as beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Most things are not. Uranus, oil reserves, and atoms do not cease to exist when nobody looks at them. They existed prior to their discovery, for one cannot discover non-existent things.<br><br>If unobserved objects did not exist, then it's a good thing the earth rotates. —because if everybody stopped looking at the planets for a second, would they cease to exist? Should you make sure you are always observed, so that you will never vanish? —you probably get the point.<br><br>So western philosophies say reality is self-existent and independent of all observers. Scientists in general believed this, –until recently. While it is easy to come up with real examples that "break" many eastern philosophies, quantum mechanics has produced examples that "break" most western philosophies. While these examples have only be observed in subatomic particles, nobody can explain why this even happens to them.<br><br>So science, and observation do not bode well for the theory of objectivity as it has been portrayed on this thread by some of you, as a matter of fact it completely undermines it.<br><br>So think upon this... we live in a virtual universe where the appearance of reality is but smoke made by the fire.

Jor el, the flaw here is you are bringing a ontological understanding (counter) to a epistemological discussion.

Or simply put you are using the rules of candy land to play chess.

In this context 'THE RULES' matter, a lot.

FYI:If you are interested, pm Mara for a link to his debate epistemological/ ontological or the nature of subject/ objective reality. It is by far one of best debates on here.

Ant addresses many common problems/flaws in this debate.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Jor-el]

Jor el, the flaw here is you are bringing a ontological understanding (counter) to a epistemological discussion.

Or simply put you are using the rules of candy land to play chess.

In this context 'THE RULES' matter, a lot.

FYI:If you are interested, pm Mara for a link to his debate epistemological/ ontological or the nature of subject/ objective reality. It is by far one of best debates on here.

Ant addresses many common problems/flaws in this debate.

Ontological arguments are metaphyscial in nature, my entire post has no metaphysics involved except for the one little joke about God observing the tree fall, the rest is commonly understood by your own arguments to be epistemological.

In other words, we are dealing with knowledge that is accepted to be true by the highest standards of scientific endeavour. This is in regards to Schrödinger's Cat and the specific fields of wave / particle Theory as well Quantum Physics, this is commonly accepted as an Epistemological argument.

While you may have been mislead by one of the links in my post, the actual content is Epistemological rather than Ontological.

Read up on Humberto Maturana...

Humberto Maturana [1928] - Biologist, Cybernetician, Scientist - invented his theory of autopoiesis following in the pathways of Bateson, Wittgenstein, the social ricorso of Vico, the self-production notion of Paul Weiss, and many others. He has spent his career elaborating this theory within a biological research programme in his laboratory in Santiago [above which was written Experimental Epistemology Lab]. Known world-wide as Humberto {except in Italy where he is Umberto}, he continues to elaborate his theory generating experimental evidence for the thesis that reality is a consensual communal construction while appearing to be objectively existing. The notion of objectivity is replaced by that of constructivism.

"The Biology of Cognition is an explanatory proposition that attemps to show how human cognitive processes arise from the operation of human beings as living systems. As much, The Biology of Cognition entails reflexions oriented to understand living systems, their evolutionary history, language as a biological phenomenon, the nature of explanations, and the origin of humaness. As a reflection on how we do what we do as observers it is a study in the epistemology of knowledge. But, and at the same time as a reflection on how we exist in language as languaging beings, it is a study on human relations".

While I may use both types of argument at different times, in this specific case, you have no case...

Edited September 14, 2010 by Jor-el

[Mr Walker]

First of all, MW - you have EDITED my post when quoting. If you do this once again I would have to report you. Objectively I mean.

Secondly, the objective nature of platypus was not anyhow discussed in my post; this animal was not even mentioned in it. However if you like this example, then platypus is objective BECAUSE it can be photographed and then recognized by the photo by the independent people. This cannot be said about God though, which cannot be photographed (at least you haven't provided any photos yet despite your promises). Strange, is not it? Your god emits the light, and this light cannot be registered by a photo camera... Oh, you just did not have a camera at hand!!! So it is necessary to believe you on this... But is not it what Sheri said - if one needs to believe in something, for it to be valid, then this something is subjective?

What do you mean edited. I cut and pasted it verbatim. Or at least one part of it. It was a direct quote. I will check but that was my intent. If i copied it otherwise i apologise. I may have quoted from a quote used by another writer But i did not alter a word of what i cut and pasted.

I just checked. My quote was a direct/ verbatim cut and paste from your post. It was also used by another poster. i dont understand your criticism. Or am i missing something.

Of course the light odf the "angel" could have been photographed (given that it was seen by other individuals) but as ive said before, that would prove nothing to you.

I already have sufficient physicla proofs of the light's objective existence Eg it lit up the yard allowing me to see objects which i later went back and verified as existing. it was seen by other people some distance away.. Those are sufficient physical proofs of the objective existence(of the light) for me, and i believe rightly so.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Your post

"Objective" is something existing independently from the Observers. "Subjective" it is something existing in the minds of the Observers. An objective entity "A" is reflected by the Observers as a subjective entity "a" - however the Observers can also produce a reflection without any matching entity of the Objective reality. In order to determine whether a subjective reflection "x" is caused by the really objectively existing entity "X", the entity in question (X) needs to be reflected by the other means, excluding the direct participation of the Observers, for instance - photographed. If the Observers retain the ability to associate the image on the photo with their reflection "x", then "X" can be considered Objective.

There is no means to speak about some "objective God" unless this God is photographed and recognized on the photos by those who subjectively saw him before. Inability to understand this simple thing accounts for what the OP calls it, for delusion.

[Mr Walker]

My quote of your post

"Objective" is something existing independently from the Observers. "Subjective" it is something existing in the minds of the Observers. An objective entity "A" is reflected by the Observers as a subjective entity "a" - however the Observers can also produce a reflection without any matching entity of the Objective reality. In order to determine whether a subjective reflection "x" is caused by the really objectively existing entity "X", the entity in question (X) needs to be reflected by the other means, excluding the direct participation of the Observers, for instance - photographed. If the Observers retain the ability to associate the image on the photo with their reflection "x", then "X" can be considered Objective.

There is no means to speak about some "objective God" unless this God is photographed and recognized on the photos by those who subjectively saw him before. Inability to understand this simple thing accounts for what the OP calls it, for delusion.

How, precisely, have i altered it?

Edited September 15, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

MW this 'take' on Philosophy is in your opinion, correct?

Thank you for sharing.

Epistemology is the Philosophy to explore. FYI

If something 'doesn't' need/ require - belief/perception; it's objective.

If it does; it's subjective.

Beyond understanding the above basic concepts, there really is nothing to debate.

No it is fact. And part of an ongoing evolution of the nature of philosophy. You can find this by either reading books about philosophy, or even just reading internet sites. A person "trapped'" within the perspective of a modern philosophy course may come to believe that this is a universl view, but it is simply not so, and has never been so. It is like an yother historical perspective or movement.

It is not honest to promote one modern variant of philosophy as either the only modern variant, or inded the only historical variant, and it is pointless to pretend that philosophy has the power to usurp and redfine terms like objective and subjective which have wider, and older, historical meanings.

[Mr Walker]

I agree, once you perceive anything it becomes subjective, so any sense of objective reality is impossible for us to know.

And what doesn't need or require perception to confirm its existence? You know.....if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear, does it make a sound? I'm not sure we can know anything other than subjectively. The only way I see anything being deemed "objective" is comparing our "subjective" views of it and if it matches up, we "call" it objective.

We will just have to disagree. Of course if a tree falls in a forest, it makes a sound. Sound is not in our perception but in its existence. The fact that no human is there to hear it makes no differnce to the tree falling, the sound waves emanating from the fall, and crash etc. It is simply human hubris not to be able to see this.

To follow this train of thought to its conclusion divides us from scientific reality, and while philosophically interesting, is hence not just potentially misleading, but thus dangerous.

The tree and its fall has objective existence whether it occured in a forest before human existence or on planet with no ears at all to hear it. That is the true nature of reality. The tree falls the sound waves, emenate the earth shudders. No humans required. Adding a human and its ears to the equation alters it not one whit.

[Mr Walker]

Marabod, in talking to the mod she points out that an emoticon appears on my copy of the quote . I have no idea how it appears there, as all i did was cut and paste your copy into mine. When i did it the second time, no trace of the emoticon appears ,even though i followed precisely the same copy /paste procedure.

I can see now why the appearance and particularly the placement of the emoticon would upset you, but i honestly didnt have a clue what you were talking about. And i never deliberately inserted the emoticon, and cant even understand, physically, how it can appear in one copy and paste and not in another. However it happened, i apologise for upsetting you.

Perhaps some thing else was having a joke at the nature of reality. (I dont expect you to believe that, but i hope you will believe that not only did i not place the emoticon in the cut and pasted quote i can't understand why /how it appears there, or why it does not appear the second time i did exactly the same process.)

..... A little later.

Looking back at the posts, the only thing i can think is tha i intended to put a devil at the end of my post, which would have made sense (at least to me)

If i had the cursor on the wrong spot then the emoticon would have appeared there. And since the new format for Um, my cursor and even typing/corrections has been devlishly lagging. Emoticons are particularly slow to appear on my text and often dont appear until after i post. They are also slow to appear when i open any post. So, given that devilish forces were not at work, that seems the most likely scenario.

The positioning of the cursor at the time( if that is indeed what happened,) was just particularly unfortunate.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Mr Walker

[MARAB0D]

Marabod, in talking to the mod she points out that an emoticon appears on my copy of the quote . I have no idea how it appears there, as all i did was cut and paste your copy into mine. When i did it the second time, no trace of the emoticon appears ,even though i followed precisely the same copy /paste procedure.

I can see now why the appearance and particularly the placement of the emoticon would upset you, but i honestly didnt have a clue what you were talking about. And i never deliberatley inserted the emoticon, and cant even understand, physically, how it can appear in one copy and paste and not in another. However it happened, i apologise for upsetting you.

Perhaps some thing else was having a joke at the nature of reality. (I dont expect you to believe that, but i hope you will believe that not only did i not place the emoticon in the cut and pasted quote i can't understand why /how it appears there, or why it does not appear the second time i did exactly the same process.)

No worries, MW. I think it could be an angel joking, or even the Platypus himself

[Mr Walker]

No worries, MW. I think it could be an angel joking, or even the Platypus himself

Phew! Im pleased to hear that. I know from experience how serious it can be to raise the blood pressure of a poor old bloke with a heart problem.

[+Sherapy]

Ontological arguments are metaphyscial in nature, my entire post has no metaphysics involved except for the one little joke about God observing the tree fall, the rest is commonly understood by your own arguments to be epistemological.

In other words, we are dealing with knowledge that is accepted to be true by the highest standards of scientific endeavour. This is in regards to Schrödinger's Cat and the specific fields of wave / particle Theory as well Quantum Physics, this is commonly accepted as an Epistemological argument.

While you may have been mislead by one of the links in my post, the actual content is Epistemological rather than Ontological.

Read up on Humberto Maturana...

Humberto Maturana [1928] - Biologist, Cybernetician, Scientist - invented his theory of autopoiesis following in the pathways of Bateson, Wittgenstein, the social 'ricorso' of Vico, the self-production notion of Paul Weiss, and many others. He has spent his career elaborating this theory within a biological research programme in his laboratory in Santiago [above which was written 'Experimental Epistemology Lab']. Known world-wide as Humberto {except in Italy where he is 'Umberto'}, he continues to elaborate his theory generating experimental evidence for the thesis that reality is a consensual communal construction while appearing to be 'objectively' existing. The notion of 'objectivity' is replaced by that of 'constructivism'.

"The Biology of Cognition is an explanatory proposition that attemps to show how human cognitive processes arise from the operation of human beings as living systems. As much, The Biology of Cognition entails reflexions oriented to understand living systems, their evolutionary history, language as a biological phenomenon, the nature of explanations, and the origin of humaness. As a reflection on how we do what we do as observers it is a study in the epistemology of knowledge. But, and at the same time as a reflection on how we exist in language as languaging beings, it is a study on human relations".

While I may use both types of argument at different times, in this specific case, you have no case...

In this particular discussion I am honing in on epistemological as an example, as a common ground.

It does matter for me in order for the discussion to move forward.

There is no argument so far, for me , I'm simply just clarifying the understanding of the basics, of the nature of sug/obj reality.

Thank you for your responses ..

Edited September 15, 2010 by Sherizzle

[+Sherapy]

No it is fact. And part of an ongoing evolution of the nature of philosophy. You can find this by either reading books about philosophy, or even just reading internet sites. A person "trapped'" within the perspective of a modern philosophy course may come to believe that this is a universl view, but it is simply not so, and has never been so. It is like an yother historical perspective or movement.

It is not honest to promote one modern variant of philosophy as either the only modern variant, or inded the only historical variant, and it is pointless to pretend that philosophy has the power to usurp and redfine terms like objective and subjective which have wider, and older, historical meanings.

MW, Forgive me, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

[MARAB0D]

MW, Forgive me, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

I can give you a hint: to have some idea of the said, you need to practically encounter an objective platypus, emitting the light and curing from tobacco dependency. If you do not have them in Cali, then opt for a giant Schroedinger's Cat in a shape of a pillar of light, which visits your hospital bed, leaves you the Bible and jumps out of the 20th level window (with probability 50%). In any case try checking the urine sample daily, it may contain some proofs of God's existence. And do not even dream of becoming Napoleon, I am the one already - all you can hope for is a role of Josephine. Read Anton Chekhov's "Ward #6"...

[Mr Walker]

MW, Forgive me, but I have no idea what you are saying here.

What i am saying is that there exists within the modern philosophic academic establishment a movemnent or variant of philosophy.

That variant has some historical antecedents but is also beholden to "modern "scientific discoveries first on the nature of light/colour and later to modern scientific understandings of the organs of sensory perception.

This movemetnt holds that either n such thing as objective reality exists, or if it does humans are not physuiologically/biologically adequately equipped to perceive it objectively Thus to them we dont see reality but something which resembles a data package or sense form.

Now tha tis only one view within the philosophic establishment, and its evolution and conflict with other perspectives is well documented. You can trace its origins back through some of the great philosophers from locke to russell.

It is an opinion/ viewpoint/ or philosophical concept. There is absolutley nothing in the way of eveidence, or logic, to suggest it resembles the truth or reality at all.

And outside of philosophy, ie in plain english, objective and subjective have clear, well defined and understood terms, which all non philosophers can agree on or simly look up in a dictionary.

Objective means the qualities pertaining to an object. Subjective means the qualities inferered or perceived by the subject. Any trained english speaker knows they can describe things in both objective and subjective terms. Only a philosopher will disagree with this .

They argue tha tno human can see and thus describe the objective nature of ANYTHING .

If you accept that philosophicla pov as reality it lads inevitably to ridiculous conclusions.None of the physical sciences could operate effectively.

Some philosophers even argue that the sandwich you pack for lunch, physically dematerialises into non existence when you place it in your lunchbox, and rematerialises when it can be observed again.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Guest]

What i am saying is that there exists within the modern philosophic academic establishment a movemnent or variant of philosophy.

That variant has some historical antecedents but is also beholden to "modern "scientific discoveries first on the nature of light/colour and later to modern scientific understandings of the organs of sensory perception.

This movemetnt holds that either n such thing as objective reality exists, or if it does humans are not physuiologically/biologically adequately equipped to perceive it objectively Thus to them we dont see reality but something which resembles a data package or sense form.

Now tha tis only one view within the philosophic establishment, and its evolution and conflict with other perspectives is well documented. You can trace its origins back through some of the great philosophers from locke to russell.

It is an opinion/ viewpoint/ or philosophical concept. There is absolutley nothing in the way of eveidence, or logic, to suggest it resembles the truth or reality at all.

And outside of philosophy, ie in plain english, objective and subjective have clear, well defined and understood terms, which all non philosophers can agree on or simly look up in a dictionary.

Objective means the qualities pertaining to an object. Subjective means the qualities inferered or perceived by the subject. Any trained english speaker knows they can describe things in both objective and subjective terms. Only a philosopher will disagree with this .

They argue tha tno human can see and thus describe the objective nature of ANYTHING .

If you accept that philosophicla pov as reality it lads inevitably to ridiculous conclusions.None of the physical sciences could operate effectively.

Some philosophers even argue that the sandwich you pack for lunch, physically dematerialises into non existence when you place it in your lunchbox, and rematerialises when it can be observed again.

But Quantum mechanics, the most proven of modern scientific theories, tells us that your idea of reality devoid of the observer is impossible. We see, we interpret, but we never actually really exist outside of our complex processing mechanisms.

Saying that reality doesn't behave in that way is simply a statement that within our reality model we only see it in one particular way. Again our reality model is not objective reality - and can never be so.

Br Cornelius

[+Sherapy]

I can give you a hint: to have some idea of the said, you need to practically encounter an objective platypus, emitting the light and curing from tobacco dependency. If you do not have them in Cali, then opt for a giant Schroedinger's Cat in a shape of a pillar of light, which visits your hospital bed, leaves you the Bible and jumps out of the 20th level window (with probability 50%). In any case try checking the urine sample daily, it may contain some proofs of God's existence. And do not even dream of becoming Napoleon, I am the one already - all you can hope for is a role of Josephine. Read Anton Chekhov's "Ward #6"...

This sounds like reaffirmation through denial, arguing on faith(blue sky) something is true. Presupposing a concept is fact for no other reason, then choosing to.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Jor-el]

But Quantum mechanics, the most proven of modern scientific theories, tells us that your idea of reality devoid of the observer is impossible. We see, we interpret, but we never actually really exist outside of our complex processing mechanisms.

Saying that reality doesn't behave in that way is simply a statement that within our reality model we only see it in one particular way. Again our reality model is not objective reality - and can never be so.

Br Cornelius

My goodness Br. C!!!!!!

You've hit the nail on the head, this is what all my posts have been about on this very thread... finally someone else is saying it as well.

[questionmark]

My goodness Br. C!!!!!!

You've hit the nail on the head, this is what all my posts have been about on this very thread... finally someone else is saying it as well.

Yeh, but by extension it also negates your postulate.