There is no right or wrong, good or bad, only experience

[Michael 345]

If only

I ride a motorbike

I have what I call Road Runner syndrome

I look right, no traffic, left, no traffic, right again, left again, right, left, right, left still no traffic

I start over the crossway

Creamed by a semitrailer

 

[ForrestDean]

If only

I ride a motorbike

I have what I call Road Runner syndrome

I look right, no traffic, left, no traffic, right again, left again, right, left, right, left still no traffic

I start over the crossway

Creamed by a semitrailer

Dang! And I thought that only happened to me. Well, I don't usually get creamed, and I don't drive a mororbike, but I swear every time I want to pull out that's when a vehicle is coming. Maybe if I believe hard enough no one will ever come.

 

[James R]

Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes conversations can morph into totally different topics. Normally I have no interest in debating, but I was actually having fun with this one, and I just wanted to see how far James R would go with it. It's an endless debate that could run in circles forever.

I must say, I didn't expect your refusal to take notice of evidence to turn into a general denial of right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

It just shows: if you dig down a bit into what people really think, you can find some bizarre ideas and some screwy double-think. All part of the rich human tapestry, I suppose.

 

[ForrestDean]

I must say, I didn't expect your refusal to take notice of evidence to turn into a general denial of right and wrong, good and bad, etc.

It just shows: if you dig down a bit into what people really think, you can find some bizarre ideas and some screwy double-think. All part of the rich human tapestry, I suppose.

Yep. Of course, I guess life would be a bit boring if everyone was the same I guess. Sometimes screwy people can make like a bit more entertaining.

 

[Yazata]

The possibility that some statements are both true and false at the same time? Got an example?

Quantum mechanics arguably provides us with some examples.

And if we can't be entirely sure whether a proposition P is true or not, we might arguably be left with some simultaneous non-zero truth possibility for both P and ~P.

But most fundamentally, I'm not convinced that my ability or inability to provide somebody with examples constrains real life states of affairs. I don't believe that the limits of my imagination are coextensive with the limits of reality.

The scope of reality isn't coextensive with the cognitive limitations of any other animal species. (Insects, chimpanzees...) So it just seems like hubris to insist that the limits of human cognition somehow defines what can and can't be.

That makes you a realist, and I am too.

I'm most emphatically a realist.

Personally, I am very wary of claims that certain people have some kind of direct access to special knowledge that is innate in them, for example by virtue of a claimed connection to a God. I'm wary because I've seen so many examples of how this kind of thinking can lead people astray, to the point where they preference their own subjective notions over that "objective state of affairs" that you mention.

I lean very strongly towards empiricism. But I'm still unsure what to make of logic and mathematics.

What are they? What is their subject matter? (What are numbers or abstract mathematical structures?) How do humans know about them? (By pure cogitation?) Must reality actually conform to them and if so, why? I lean towards mathematical Platonism in some of my moods. (Quiet down, W4U!) In real life, I don't really have a clue.

I think a fact is basically a piece of information that reasonable people agree on.

I'm more inclined to call that 'belief'. A widely shared belief in this case, a well-justified belief perhaps.

As I see it, a proposition is true if it corresponds to the facts/objective states-of-affairs. (I'm aware that objections can be raised to the correspondence theory of truth.) I don't want to identify 'facts' with expert consensus (which might still be wrong) but with how things really are. (Realism again.)

Expert consensus, especially if it's based on persuasive justification, arguably makes it more likely that what people believe are the facts actually corresponds to what the facts really are. (That depends on the fundamental conservative assumption that everyone who came before us wasn't a total idiot. We can learn from their experience.) And since we don't have any 'God's-eye' ability to intuit truth directly, strong justification is basically the best guide that we have.

The most valuable facts seem to have a very close connection to the material world. As we move away from what is directly and easily perceivable by an average observer, the status of "facts" becomes more debatable.

I'd define 'objectivity' as something like 'the case not only for me, but for everyone else too'. The facts of the material world typically seem to have that kind of objectivity. They keep all of us on the same page. Ethics and aesthetics and the phenomenal experience stuff doesn't seem to have the same kind of objectivity.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The mindset I have is that I believe in all things but I have no interest in being bound by any of them.



I just don't see the facts we have here as something that is written in stone given that they are derived from a subjective reality within an infinite Universe. Again, I only use them as I see fit as guides to a much larger truth.



What I mean is that as of today we live in a self-servinig global society in which all aspects of this System is designed or programmed to serve only it's own self interests at the expense of everyone and everything else. This self-serving mindset permeates all aspects of the global society which includes all our institutions such as religions, government, corporations, etc., as well as most all individuals throughout the world. So the motives of those who gather and present information to the world are questionable. So, I take whatever information or "facts" that I resonate with or that I feel could be useful, and I discard that which I have no interest in at the time. I never see ANY information as right or wrong, good or bad, for after all it is only information. Again, I believe in all things. I just use whatever suits me at the time.

Religion defines the need or lack of good & bad
Real life dictates pain suffering & death & sex

positioning yourself to define a value of no value means your quantifying aa human behavior as a moral comparative value.
that still makes it a religion(atheist language = ideological paradigm of human morality)

 

[Write4U]

James R said,
I think a fact is basically a piece of information that reasonable people agree on

Perhaps it may run even deeper than that a general or specific area of agreement, by the experience of empathic cognition responses to shared events.

The mirror neuron network allows for deep emotional connection, which if cultivated becomes a symbiotic relationship, beneficial to both parties.

What is objectionable to one person is most likely also objectionable to most persons. People share the ability to express the same emotional experience. But IMO, most people enjoy company and having friends on which you can rely is a desirable and treasured status symbol. "A friend in need is a friend indeed"

 

[Yazata]

As opposed to a non-real world? Which world would you consider real? All experiential realities are just that, experiences, and ALL experiences are just as real as any other.

That seems to be an expression of a very strong metaphysical idealism. But most of the historical idealist philosophers probably would have rejected your 'anything-goes' version. While they did argue that all we can experience is what is displayed a on some mysterious inner TV monitor of phenomenal experience, they most definitely made a distinction between fantasy, illusion and hallucination on one hand, and experiences of reality on the other. They didn't want their idealism to become a license for psychosis. Certainly characterizing the reality/illusion distinction is difficult in their theory, but it seems that most of them appealed to some kind of coherence theory of truth.

The word "delusion" is just a term reserved for those who are unable or unwilling to accept realities outside the one they experience now within their little bubble. The exact same applies to the word "hallucinations" as well. There is no such thing as hallucinations regardless of any scientifice evidence claiming that it's nothing more than neurons firing abnormally in the brain. It's the neurons firing "abnormally" that are actually allowing your brain to perceive other realities.

No,no,no,no. I'm not going there.

As I told James, I'm very much a realist. (A "naive" realist some of the less charitable critics of my views would say.)

I'm convinced that we are in causal contact with our surroundings and that we receive information about them through our sensory modalities. I reject very emphatically any suggestion that "we" (what does that word refer to?) are really perceiving an inner display that represents the world around us. There isn't any mysterious inner eye in my opinion, nor is there any inner phenomenal display. We actually perceive the world around us, by means of the causal processes involved,

I'm convinced that there's a reality outside my head, your head and everyone else's head. Natural science doesn't reduce to my own individual psychology the way that the idealists would like. We aren't all solipsists. (Other people seem to merely be parts of that external world that idealists want to deny, after all.)

Nor do I believe that my own personal identity is just an illusion (at least in this sense, I do deny the existence of souls) and decide instead that the mysterious experiencer experiencing reality through the limited perspective of my eyes is really God or the 'Absolute'. (So that 'I' am just divine perception with a particular limited and restricted perspective.) That's the line that the Hindu Advaitists take.

Interestingly, Jain philosophy doesn't treat our senses as our sources of knowledge. Instead, our senses are like tiny pin-holes that we look through that restricts us to a single personal perspective. They believe that the soul is by its nature omniscient and divine, and the goal of salvation as they see it is to eliminate the crud of karma, which they identify as physical reality, releasing the soul from its bondage.

Again interestingly (to me anyway), some Tibetan Buddhists take a line very much like yours. They insist that everything that we take to be real is a (Kantian-style) mental construction. So some of their meditations involve very intense visualizations, in which a monk visualizes a selected patron deity in such perfect detail that it becomes just as real as the world of the tables and the chairs, and becomes capable of delivering teachings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa

I most certainly don't believe any of this. I'm just pointing it out.

 

[ForrestDean]

That seems to be an expression of a very strong metaphysical idealism. But most of the historical idealist philosophers probably would have rejected your 'anything-goes' version. While they did argue that all we can experience is what is displayed a on some mysterious inner TV monitor of phenomenal experience, they most definitely made a distinction between fantasy, illusion and hallucination on one hand, and experiences of reality on the other. They didn't want their idealism to become a license for psychosis. Certainly characterizing the reality/illusion distinction is difficult in their theory, but it seems that most of them appealed to some kind of coherence theory of truth.

It's only idealistic to those who lack the experience of other realities beyond the one we perceive now. So yes, I can see how that could be labeled as "idealism" by the many. Again, other realities would only be considered fantasy, illusion, and hallucination to those who have never experienced anything beyond what we see now. It sometimes becomes a problem of psychosis, schizophrenia, or other mental disorders with those individuals who have unintentionally experienced other realities and are not prepared for it. These could be individuals who have an overly active pineal gland but at the same time have been conditioned and programmed by society since birth to be unfamiliar or even discredit these natural abilities, and to believe that they are no more than hallucinations could be very troublesome to the individual causing some to go insane in rare cases. The ones who are prepared and disciplined for these experiences are very easily able to discern the difference between experiencing other realities and the reality we experience here amongst other people within this world and not get them confused. It certainly does not disrupt their day to day living. If anything it enhances it.

No,no,no,no. I'm not going there.

As I told James, I'm very much a realist. (A "naive" realist some of the less charitable critics of my views would say.)

You see, that's very interesting because I'm also very much a realist, because as I said, all experiences are very much real. For me, there are no "fantasy" or non-real experiences. Everything in them, however, is just an illusion. None of it is real, including within this reality here. They are just props upon a stage that I use and engage within these experiences.

I'm convinced that we are in causal contact with our surroundings and that we receive information about them through our sensory modalities.

That is indeed correct. And if one were to use this definition alone to define what is real then I can assure you that this world here we experience around us with our 5 physical senses is nothing more than an extremely dim, dreary, dream compared to the much higher vibratory realities that anyone can experience naturally. This world here would very much be considered nothing more than a "fantasy" or an illusion by those who have experienced the other realities. I'm aware that for anyone who has never experienced anything beyond this reality would see this as preposterous, ridiculous, and pure insanity. But there's no doubt that once they have experienced them with full waking consciousness their perspectives will change dramatically.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm not concerned whether anyone believes it or not, and I'm certainly not going to try and convince anyone to try it so they can see for themselves. I'm just telling it like it is. I mean it is somewhat a shame that so many people have never experienced it, especially on a regular basis. Some worlds are indescribable and some are ordinary. There is absolutely NO virtual reality device in existence that can even come close to mimicking the experience of a fully blown projection of consciousness experience. NONE!

We aren't all solipsists. (Other people seem to merely be parts of that external world that idealists want to deny, after all.)

Maybe. But if we were to consider that Universe is infinite I don't see why we couldn't be. We could all merely just be sharing a particular version of reality together but as individuals like rubber ducks in a stream flowing in the same direction. Of course, I'm not saying that's how it is. I'm just entertaining an idea or theory here.

Interestingly, Jain philosophy doesn't treat our senses as our sources of knowledge. Instead, our senses are like tiny pin-holes that we look through that restricts us to a single personal perspective. They believe that the soul is by its nature omniscient and divine, and the goal of salvation as they see it is to eliminate the crud of karma, which they identify as physical reality, releasing the soul from its bondage.

I can relate to some of that. Our physical body along with its senses is just an interface. However, considering I don't recognize "right" and "wrong" as any type of fabric or law of the Universe, I have no interest in karma, much less any interest in trying to eliminate or balance it. There is the Law of Cause and Effect, but "karma" is just another one of those labels. I'll let the Universe balance itself.

Again interestingly (to me anyway), some Tibetan Buddhists take a line very much like yours. They insist that everything that we take to be real is a (Kantian-style) mental construction. So some of their meditations involve very intense visualizations, in which a monk visualizes a selected patron deity in such perfect detail that it becomes just as real as the world of the tables and the chairs, and becomes capable of delivering teachings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa

I most certainly don't believe any of this. I'm just pointing it out.

I'm sure their lifestyle may be similar to the views I have expressed. However, I've never tried studying Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, or any -ism, although I'm sure a lot of the information I've read over the years have originated in some way from their teachings. But that doesn't concern me. I take whatever information that appeals to me and discard the rest that doesn't. I wouldn't be surprised if there are lots of Buddhist teachings I don't agree with or that doesn't interest me at the moment. Like I've said in another post, I'm not partial to the source of any information. It could come from the "Holy" Bible, the Book of Satan, writings from Hitler or Mother Teresa. For me, it's nothing more than just information.

 

[Write4U]

I'm convinced that we are in causal contact with our surroundings and that we receive information about them through our sensory modalities. I reject very emphatically any suggestion that "we" (what does that word refer to?) are really perceiving an inner display that represents the world around us. There isn't any mysterious inner eye in my opinion, nor is there any inner phenomenal display. We actually perceive the world around us, by means of the causal processes involved,

I'm convinced that there's a reality outside my head, your head and everyone else's head. Natural science doesn't reduce to my own individual psychology the way that the idealists would like. We aren't all solipsists. (Other people seem to merely be parts of that external world that idealists want to deny, after all.)

I agree with most of your posit. Perhaps this may add a new dimension to the discussion.

Anil Seth proposes that we "hallucinate our reality". This is not as far-fetched as it may sound, considering the indirect processing of external information. In the end our brain can only make a "best guess" of what's out there.

A brain in a vat stimulated the proper way, would not know the difference from being in the vat or outside in the sunshine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat

The brain is completely shielded from the external world. All its information processing is from indirect translations of what the brain "recognizes from memory".

This is a really cool presentation which will shed light on "Your brain hallucinates your reality"

 

[Write4U]

That is indeed correct. And if one were to use this definition alone to define what is real then I can assure you that this world here we experience around us with our 5 physical senses is nothing more than an extremely dim, dreary, dream compared to the much higher vibratory realities that anyone can experience naturally. This world here would very much be considered nothing more than a "fantasy" or an illusion by those who have experienced the other realities. I'm aware that for anyone who has never experienced anything beyond this reality would see this as preposterous, ridiculous, and pure insanity. But there's no doubt that once they have experienced them with full waking consciousness their perspectives will change dramatically.

I am not sure I agree with that statement.
"the other realities" do not exist except as a subjective individual mental experiences. As James said, only when we agree on what it is we experience can we call it reality.

Moreover we already experience the higher vibratory realities. Light, sound are vibratory experiences and affords a rich emotional chemical response system. Ain't nothing dull about reality at any level except unconsciousness.

 

[Michael 345]

our 5 physical senses

Well in the real world people have a lot more than 5 senses

But I note you are not a fan of there being only one reality

 

[ForrestDean]

"the other realities" do not exist except as a subjective individual mental experiences.

Yep, I agree. Including this one.

Moreover we already experience the higher vibratory realities. Light, sound are vibratory experiences and affords a rich emotional chemical response system. Ain't nothing dull about reality at any level except unconsciousness.

That you're aware of.

 

[TheFrogger]

Correct Michael345. We have a sense of humour, balance etc. There are more than five sences, probably an infinite number.

 

[ForrestDean]

But I note you are not a fan of there being only one reality

Well, I know I've labeled them as "other realities", but the more appropriate phrase would be "experiential realities". None of them are actually real, including this one. There is only one true reality, and that is pure, native unobserved universal energy. So, in all actuality, there is only one reality. But yeah, you would be correct, I'm not a fan of only one experiential reality. That would be extremely dull. That's why I find it silly when people obsess over trying to discover a way to extend our lives here in this world indefinitely. It's like wanting to remain in kindergarten forever and never moving on to the first grade.

 

[Michael 345]

native unobserved universal energ

No such animal

It's like wanting to remain in kindergarten forever and never moving on to the first grade.

When kindergarten is all there is why not?

By the way if if if there are other realities what happens in them?

Are there some lower than ours and the occupants trying to get into ours?

Much like occupants of this reality are aiming for a heaven reality?

How do any cross overs happen?

Can you go, na not as good as I thought, and come back?

 

[Write4U]

.........
How do any cross overs happen?
Can you go, "na not as good as I thought", and come back?

The grass is greener on the other side of reality?.............

 

[TheFrogger]

There was a Greek (I beleive) philosopher who wondered where souls come from, and where they go to...

If you want to return, Michael345, you are welcome to. Just know you will be missed.

 

[Michael 345]

The grass is greener on the other side of reality?.............

Two meanings of grass so not sure which one you mean but sure it is the lawn stuff

And speculation here, some of the other grass is responsible for those other realities

 

[Michael 345]

There was a Greek (I beleive) philosopher who wondered where souls come from, and where they go to...

If you want to return, Michael345, you are welcome to. Just know you will be missed.

Errr my arr soul has been with me a long time and I would be lost without it

Don't know who installed it but hope does not leave until have no further use for it