Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
fullywired

. - Understanding religious delusion

680 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tiggs

Try finding something useful, developed by those who do not separate Objective from Subjective, I would give you time till Christmas to report it here!

Philanthropy.

And you try finding something creative; from music, painting to architecture which does fully separate Objective from Subjective. I'll give you the same time frame.

Pretty much any computer program that can generate such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

That includes being able to test necessary constraints for a God, such as his ability to answer prayer, a necessary constraint which appears to be suspiciously absent.

In short - your rejection of Science is not because it cannot answer those questions, but because you don't like the answers it gives you.

You're not alone, however. I do it, too. I reject pretty much all quantum interpretations because losing the idea of local reality is anathema to me. Like Einstein, I don't believe that God plays dice with the Universe. Especially the God bit.

Well said. I know what you mean about quantum mechanics, but I prefer to let it exist with its own seeming weirdness.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

That is not waht modern neuro science, artificial intelligence experts and other cutting edge scientists in the realm of thought, memory etc., are concluding.

I am not an expert but i read and watch enough to know that thoughts and memories can be viewed using technology, as they work in the human mind,

And that scientists can already remove specific memories and are on the brink of being able to implant and transfer specific memories. If this can be done, then thoughts and memories must have objective existence, to allow them to be manipulated in these ways. Something non concrete can not be physically manipulated, somthing material/concrete/with objective existence, can.

This is largely irrelevant to the nature of objective/subjective realities, but thoughts and memories are no longer the immaterial subjective concepts they were up until this millenia.

We are now understanding that not only are thoughts and memories organic, but just how they are created, retained/stored and transferred. Thus a human thought can be sent to a machine and make that machine operate. Again, something without material existence cannot do this.

Again Mr Walker you are totally wrong. Science has measured brain activity (ie regions associated with a particular thought), but have never actually measured the thought. Science doesn't yet have any understanding of what constitutes a thought and how it is initiated they simply know the very rough pattern in creates in a brain scan. They do not even know if the firing of neurons is an initiator of a thought or a response to a thought. Since they know so little about what the underlying mechanisms are the things you claim they will achieve are as yet science fiction.

On top of all this it fundametally doesn't address the problems of Ontology.

In essence this is an argument about the nature of objective reality, not its existence.

Its like early scientists knowing about electricity, but not having the tools, equipment, or data base of background knowledge, to fully comprehend its nature.

Already scientists are apply quantum concepts in everything from entangled photons for computing, through to matter transference and manipulation. Again, one can't physically manipulate something which does not have objective existence.

Indeed it is a argument about the natured of objective reality - and it tells us it is dependent on our subjective interpretation of what it actually is. Science does useful things with QM because it understands that reality will probably do things in a certain way if you measure enough of the events. On an event by event basis we are fundamental to the outcome. Your misunderstanding lie in the belief that when an electron "teleports" it has actually moved in a causal manor in agreement with classical mechanics. The reality is that it never moved at all because it was always in all places at all times and we just measured it where we wanted it to be.

Your simple materialistics, mechanistic and absolutist outlook of the world just doesn't fit the reality that science is discovering. The more science tells us about reality the less tangible and physical it becomes. This is a universe of probability fields where nothing is made up of little bits of predictable stuff, it is more like a vague watercolour of interacting patterns which interact with each other.

At the end of a year of looking into QM I discovered that there was no conceptual pictorial model of an atom which adequately described the reality of the atoms behaviour. The only satisfactory model we have of a quantum atom is a complex abstract mathematical formula. I think if this can be said about the stuff of reality, then it should give us pause for though about the certainties we have about the structure of macro reality.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

Mr Walker a question which touches on all of the above issues.

If a scientist identifies the brain area associated with mystical experiences and then stimulates it, the candidate sees GOD. Can it be said that he has seen GOD or has he seen the brain stimulation ? ie is the idea of GOD thus created a real mystical experience or even a real thought. If the person does have the mystical experience of God and has no knowledge of Jesus what does that say about Christianity.

Similarly if I administer to a person a high pure dose of LSD, there is a high probability that a mystical experience will ensue. Is this a real mystical experience, is the God so induced a real God or is it simply a chemical reaction to the LSD.

I ask these questions because both of these experiments have been conducted and "artifical" experiences of God have been thus induced.

It seems to me that the subjective is definately reacting to an objective stimulus, but can it be said to be reacting to the presence of the objective Divine?

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Science is able to enquire into anything that effects the Universe. If it has an effect on the Universe, then it can be measured. If it can be measured then it falls under the realm of Science.

That includes being able to test necessary constraints for a God, such as his ability to answer prayer, a necessary constraint which appears to be suspiciously absent.

In short - your rejection of Science is not because it cannot answer those questions, but because you don't like the answers it gives you.

You're not alone, however. I do it, too. I reject pretty much all quantum interpretations because losing the idea of local reality is anathema to me. Like Einstein, I don't believe that God plays dice with the Universe. Especially the God bit.

But I do believe in the quantum interpretations of the universe, that is what tells me that all this is a prefabricated reality or at least only a part of an overall reality that we can only see a part of...

Like Eintein, I too am incapable of believing that God plays dice with the universe but for different reasons. I believe that we are in effect shapers of reality in that we influence and mould it with our thoughts and our actions or inactions, each creating a result that will further induce and reshape the world we live in.. If left alone without interaction of living beings, either the universe would not exist or at the very least be a deterministic universe where all action is followed by reaction without any hand shaping it, as it goes along...

...but that is just me ranting on the keyboard. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Oh, what was?

Objectivity is beholden to our perception of the material world, if our perceptions differ how can you ever say that there is such a thing as objectivity... that is what the last few pages have been about.

For me, I think that is where Science, Philosophy comes in. It sets a standard/ guidelines for how I can apply/understand objective and subjective in concrete/practical terms.

I have/apply a format by which I can be as objective as possible, ( at best being aware of my biases) with what I understand or need to.

I don't think that just because I am subjective by nature, I should just forget objective all together; rule it out .The same for subjectivity it has it's place too. I try and go for integration and coherence when dealing with these contradictions.

Since I can't see my own biases due to my subjective nature, I have several measures in place to help remind me of them.

In a nut shell, for me; objective is considering as many pov as possible. I try and gain the broadest scope, so that I can conclude on ideas, or assign truth value to them.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

For me, I think that is where Science, Philosophy comes in. It sets a standard/ guidelines for how I can apply/understand objective and subjective in concrete/practical terms.

I have/apply a format by which I can be as objective as possible, ( at best being aware of my biases) with what I understand or need to.

I don't think that just because I am subjective by nature, I should just forget objective all together; rule it out .The same for subjectivity it has it's place too. I try and go for integration and coherence when dealing with these contradictions.

Since I can't see my own biases due to my subjective nature, I have several measures in place to help remind me of them.

In a nut shell, for me; objective is considering as many pov as possible. I try and gain the broadest scope, so that I can conclude on ideas, or assign truth value to them.

Indeed.

Let us say that you are not alone... that others do the same thing but come to significantly different conclusions... what then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beckys_Mom

I don't think that just because I am subjective by nature, I should just forget objective all together; rule it out .The same for subjectivity it has it's place too. I try and go for integration and coherence when dealing with these contradictions.

Since I can't see my own biases due to my subjective nature, I have several measures in place to help remind me of them.

In a nut shell, for me; objective is considering as many pov as possible. I try and gain the broadest scope, so that I can conclude on ideas, or assign truth value to them.

Now that was well written... good post Sheri...nicely put even lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Indeed.

Let us say that you are not alone... that others do the same thing but come to significantly different conclusions... what then?

Jorel, that's an interesting question, how are 'we' coming to different conclusions?

Perhaps, it's some do not use as many avenues available, to arrive at conclusions or to assign truth value.

How can you honestly say g-d is a fact or not a fact? How are you using subjective perception as objective fact? You have stated that g-d is a fact that you are certain(truth value) because you had a subjective experience, when you yourself say subjectivity is human nature and flawed? .And, culturally we do not define fact as certainty, but as in what evidence supports | it |.

Now that was well written... good post Sheri...nicely put even lol

Why thanks, Doll.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Jorel, that's an interesting question, how are 'we' coming to different conclusions?

Perhaps, it's some do not use as many avenues available, to arrive at conclusions or to assign truth value.

How can you honestly say g-d is a fact or not a fact? How are you using subjective perception as objective fact? You have stated that g-d is a fact that you are certain(truth value) because you had a subjective experience, when you yourself say subjectivity is human nature and flawed? .And, culturally we do not define fact as certainty, but as in what evidence supports | it |.

It is not "we" that I am talking about... my question is in general terms, if two people use the same method you describe but come to different conclusions... what then?...

This is a question of perception, it has nothing to with God or my beliefs at this moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

It is not "we" that I am talking about... my question is in general terms, if two people use the same method you describe but come to different conclusions... what then?...

This is a question of perception, it has nothing to with God or my beliefs at this moment.

How can they come to different conclusions, using the same methods, is what I am asking?

Use an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

How can they come to different conclusions, using the same methods, is what I am asking?

Use an example.

We have situations like these all the time, multiple witnesses to an event, like a multiple car accident, each witness saw the same thing from the same viewpoint, but each testifies to a different guily party for example.

Two detectives who are researching a crime, come up with two different views of how the crime was commited...

The list is endless, closer to home, a difference of opinion regarding the same event, like the twin towers tragedy, some say conspiracy others, do not, and they all have access to the same documentation.

I could give thousands of examples, but they all have this in common, they used your methods to assign truth value and came up with different results for the same event.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Philanthropy.

Pretty much any computer program that can generate such.

If the computer programme does so by itself, rather than as a result of human programming, then it is not capable of separating objectivity or subjectivity anymore than a human (it being a true artificial sapience and thus "evolved" under the same conditions as humans ie it learned sapience and as part of that learning it integrates both objective and subjective understandings and knowledge )

If it is programmed by a human then it suffers the same limitations as a human

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
name='Br Cornelius' timestamp='1284969383' post='3579537']

Mr Walker a question which touches on all of the above issues.

If a scientist identifies the brain area associated with mystical experiences and then stimulates it, the candidate sees GOD. Can it be said that he has seen GOD or has he seen the brain stimulation ? ie is the idea of GOD thus created a real mystical experience or even a real thought. If the person does have the mystical experience of God and has no knowledge of Jesus what does that say about Christianity.

First i would be suspicious of any vision of god created by electronic or stimulant enhancements. It is a good question nonetheless, as it is possible that altering the brain is required for some people to see/perceive the nature of god.

But personally i doubt it. There are simple medical explantions for visions under the influence of both drugs and electronic stimulai (also pain starvation etc) So i would not personlly trust such visions unles accompanied by indpendent proofs(but then i dont trust visions of any sort unles accompanied byother proofs from contextualpositioning to indepndent confirmation. The second mughal emporer became addicted to opium, and the visions he experienced influenced his relationship to reality in a way that lead to the temporary collapse of his empire.

It certainly may create access to a form of "god" such as the self constructed variety but i am skeptical that it opens access to the real and physical variety of god.

Similarly if I administer to a person a high pure dose of LSD, there is a high

probability that a mystical experience will ensue. Is this a real mystical experience, is the God so induced a real God or is it simply a chemical reaction to the LSD.

As above. It depends on your definition of reality, god, and mystical. It might meet my definition of mystical but not of reality or of god (in the form i know him) My god is with me in concrete form all the time I require no alteration to access him or connect with him. Of course that may be a form of almost eastern mysticism, where people connect with the cosmic consciousness through practice, training, and will . The significant thing in my example, is the physical interaction between myself, god, and the local universe, on a day to day basis. That occurs outside my mind, to a large extent although it is complementary to my connection with god.

I ask these questions because both of these experiments have been conducted and "artifical" experiences of God have been thus induced.

It seems to me that the subjective is definately reacting to an objective stimulus, but can it be said to be reacting to the presence of the objective Divine?

Br Cornelius

by the same proofs we use to inrterrogate any day to day experience

It is significant to me that my experience with god involves no known physical(organic) or psychological causes. I have not taken any drugs or stimulants for nearly 40 years, yet the interaction continues grows and evolves. But that,in itself would not preclude it being an eastern form of mystical experience, where my mind finds god within itself.

What convinces me that this cannot be so are, again, the external evidences and contextual proofs which connect my inner understandings, realisations, and experiences to the real objective and commonly shared world.

Others, who refuse to countenance the existence of a real physical and independent god must fit all experinces into one baske ; that of the mystical delusional or metaphysical . My experiencns with god are as real, and as interconnected with the real world as my experiences with my wife or dog, thus that belief simply doesnt work for me. It is not possible.

I expect that there are many ways people can see god. In the end we can only use common semse, logic, and all forms of human intelligence to decide.

My basic criteria, once i have established the reality of god, is ot question his influence within my life. In my case, god is such a physically protective and empowering force and influence, that i am happy to work with him, what ever his true identity/nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
name='Br Cornelius' timestamp='1284965606' post='3579499']

Again Mr Walker you are totally wrong. Science has measured brain activity (ie regions associated with a particular thought), but have never actually measured the thought. Science doesn't yet have any understanding of what constitutes a thought and how it is initiated they simply know the very rough pattern in creates in a brain scan. They do not even know if the firing of neurons is an initiator of a thought or a response to a thought. Since they know so little about what the underlying mechanisms are the things you claim they will achieve are as yet science fiction.

On top of all this it fundametally doesn't address the problems of Ontology

Im not an expert but my understanding is that thought (starting with memory) is nothing more than the physical product being measured.

This basically comes down to our different perceptions. You dont accept that anything can be objectively seen/ measured. I do.

The thought is the process as seen and measured by the machines. And that is why the thought is subject to; capture, measurement, observation, alteration, replication etc. Thoughts are no longer non physicla metaphysical things but actual physical entities.

Indeed it is a argument about the natured of objective reality - and it tells us it is dependent on our subjective interpretation of what it actually is. Science does useful things with QM because it understands that reality will probably do things in a certain way if you measure enough of the events. On an event by event basis we are fundamental to the outcome. Your misunderstanding lie in the belief that when an electron "teleports" it has actually moved in a causal manor in agreement with classical mechanics. The reality is that it never moved at all because it was always in all places at all times and we just measured it where we wanted it to be.

This was true of the original experiments with entangled photons. it is not what the scientists are presently working on, although it grew out of those original observations and experiments (which were primarliy based on speeding data transfer in quantum computers) I am talking of the physical "teleportation" of matter over a distance, along withthe physical manipulation and reconstruction of matter from a given template into any object rquired. Your understanding would not allow such physicla transportation or manipulation.

Your simple materialistics, mechanistic and absolutist outlook of the world just doesn't fit the reality that science is discovering. The more science tells us about reality the less tangible and physical it becomes. This is a universe of probability fields where nothing is made up of little bits of predictable stuff, it is more like a vague watercolour of interacting patterns which interact with each other.

I don't hold a view. I just listen, and read with interest, as much modern science as i can. My knolwedge is certainly filtered through what i read or observe, but it is not as far as i can ascertain, basically flawed.

At the end of a year of looking into QM I discovered that there was no conceptual pictorial model of an atom which adequately described the reality of the atoms behaviour. The only satisfactory model we have of a quantum atom is a complex abstract mathematical formula. I think if this can be said about the stuff of reality, then it should give us pause for though about the certainties we have about the structure of macro reality.

As i said this just reflects a present lack of knowledge and understanding. It goes to that more than to the nature of reality. We are observing effects for which we, as yet, lack the mathematical and scientific principles to understand.

Dont let this lack of knowledge adversely influence your basic understanding of the nature of reality, and your own interactions with it.

Like all of us, you operate at a very well integrated level within reality, and that is all that truly matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

If the computer programme does so by itself, rather than as a result of human programming, then it is not capable of separating objectivity or subjectivity anymore than a human (it being a true artificial sapience and thus "evolved" under the same conditions as humans ie it learned sapience and as part of that learning it integrates both objective and subjective understandings and knowledge )

If it is programmed by a human then it suffers the same limitations as a human

Well, all computer programs require initial human programming. Even AI would require bootstrap AI.

Are you really saying that music created by, say, a stream of random numbers requires both subjective and objective knowledge of the universe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cluey

It is not "we" that I am talking about... my question is in general terms, if two people use the same method you describe but come to different conclusions... what then?...

This is a question of perception, it has nothing to with God or my beliefs at this moment.

I have been reading on what your all saying(or trying to)......and me being me...and very rarely try to use big people words as a need to impress......i will say it this way!!!!......

Not everything is black and white(although there are many people that see philosophical arguments this way)....yes!!!...put only 2 into an equation......and generally speaking......there will be 2 different out comes(even if the question is as simple as 2+2?)........so i guess what i'm trying to get across is.......no one here is right or wrong.....this is a thread about *understanding religious delusion*.......not who is right and who is wrong!!!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I think Mr Walker, you are fudging the issues (again) and your understanding of science is filtered through popular media which has a simplifying bias. As usual you are extrapolating to the general from your own subjective thoughts and that is a huge mistake which a real scientific mind would be careful to avoid.

you make one statement and then refuse to follow through with the implication of what you have just said. Debate is difficult when there is no real progression.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Curious if this fits here. Let's say for the sake of argument that G_D is real. Would it have been likely that we were an experiment? would it be likely that as man moved away from each other to form separate groups, that god visited each group with an idea for religion? (I think we should stick to monotheism again for the sake of argument) in a sense giving each new group a "new" religion? Since we were an experiment in the first place. Do you think G_D was just curious and all religions are correct? Are

We are all a part of the same G_D?

Edited out multi post

Edited by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

We have situations like these all the time, multiple witnesses to an event, like a multiple car accident, each witness saw the same thing from the same viewpoint, but each testifies to a different guily party for example.

Two detectives who are researching a crime, come up with two different views of how the crime was commited...

The list is endless, closer to home, a difference of opinion regarding the same event, like the twin towers tragedy, some say conspiracy others, do not, and they all have access to the same documentation.

I could give thousands of examples, but they all have this in common, they used your methods to assign truth value and came up with different results for the same event.

Basically, your examples serve to spotlight the inability to separate inferences from observations, e.g. fact from fiction.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

Basically, your examples serve to spotlight the inability to separate inferences from observations, e.g. fact from fiction.

Rizzle, I would say that Jor-el's examples spotlight how different our perceptions can be. Consider the effect of Instant Replay on sports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Basically, your examples serve to spotlight the inability to separate inferences from observations, e.g. fact from fiction.

So in other words you will not actually answer the question, because the implications do not suite your argument. That's ok though, I was just making a point which is easily understandable to all, perceptions of the world differ and yours are in no way infallible.

Just because you came to a conclusion using your famed "crtical thinking" doesn't actually mean that someone will inevitably come to the same conclusions as you by using your methodology.

This is simply because no-one sees the world in exactly the same way, we may have similar views of the world, even exact views, but there is always something that influences one person in one direction and another person in another.

To declare a base reality where objective truth values exist, is an illusion in and of itself and only feeds ones own bias, and there is no sure way that we can come up with to counter that bias, it is subliminal in all we think and do.

By this I'm not saying that you are wrong in your views, but I will not go so far as to say that others views are rubbish. They do in fact exist despite your views because other peoples reality does not have to comply with yours.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I have been reading on what your all saying(or trying to)......and me being me...and very rarely try to use big people words as a need to impress......i will say it this way!!!!......

Not everything is black and white(although there are many people that see philosophical arguments this way)....yes!!!...put only 2 into an equation......and generally speaking......there will be 2 different out comes(even if the question is as simple as 2+2?)........so i guess what i'm trying to get across is.......no one here is right or wrong.....this is a thread about *understanding religious delusion*.......not who is right and who is wrong!!!!! :)

That may be what the thread declares to be the topic, but the real underlying question, is whose delusion exactly are we discussing?

As I have just posted, one persons "delusion may be another persons reality, who is to say which view is correct?

We can only truly answer that for ourselves, and no-one else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Hound

More examples of "mental self gatification", rambling on and on to make ones self feel good. It won't make hair grow on your palms or go blind.It is neater and won't stain the sheets.The gratification is till the same, just in another part of the body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

So in other words you will not actually answer the question, because the implications do not suite your argument. That's ok though, I was just making a point which is easily understandable to all, perceptions of the world differ and yours are in no way infallible.

Just because you came to a conclusion using your famed "crtical thinking" doesn't actually mean that someone will inevitably come to the same conclusions as you by using your methodology.

This is simply because no-one sees the world in exactly the same way, we may have similar views of the world, even exact views, but there is always something that influences one person in one direction and another person in another.

To declare a base reality where objective truth values exist, is an illusion in and of itself and only feeds ones own bias, and there is no sure way that we can come up with to counter that bias, it is subliminal in all we think and do.

By this I'm not saying that you are wrong in your views, but I will not go so far as to say that others views are rubbish. They do in fact exist despite your views because other peoples reality does not have to comply with yours.

My post was not intended as an insult.

I am short on time these days.

In response to your initial inquiry I'd say

One accounts for the differences, one understands the role perspective(subjectivity ) plays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.