Philosophical Subject of the Moment

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Interesting idea this thread. Esmer, that is a great episode. Legend of Soltare! Clam digger.

[The Laughing Man]

What more "proof" do we need of "Creator" than "laughter', eh?



(I better get out of here before I get "regulated" for being distractive....PEACE!)

[[Syl]]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger%27s_cat

Who has it right, the idealists or the materialists? How does it fit into the newtonian/einsteinian universe versus that of the quantum theorists?

[The Laughing Man]

The term Consensus reality has two usages. To those who adhere to the materialist philosophy, it references the overall space-time reality believed to exist irrespective of anyone's perceptions. For those who don't adhere to the materialist philosophy, it refers to the predominent agreed-upon version of reality.

That seems to draw the line here pretty cleanly.

Some idealists hold the view that there isn't one particular way things are, but rather that each person's personal reality is unique. Such idealists have the worldview which says that we each create our own reality, and while most people may be in general agreement (consensus) about what reality is like, they live in a different (or nonconsensus) reality....with the implication that this consensus reality is, to a greater or lesser extent, created by those who experience it...

Sounds "popular contemporary".

Objectivists, though not materialists, also reject the notion of subjective reality; they hold that while each individual may indeed have his own perception of reality, that perception has no effect on what reality actually is; in fact, if the perception of reality differs significantly from the actual reality, serious negative consequences are bound to follow.

This is getting close....

"reality enforcers"

heh.

According to quantum mechanics.....

This is where I get off.....so is this basically a "half full/half empty" argument by Schrödinger?

Contrary to popular belief, Schrödinger did not intend this thought experiment to indicate that he believed that the dead-alive cat would actually exist; rather he considered the quantum mechanical theory to be incomplete and not representative of reality in this case. Since a cat clearly must either be alive or dead (there is no state between alive and dead, e.g. half-dead) surely the same must be true of the nucleus. It must be either decayed or not decayed.

(nice "balls", Syl.... )

[Avatar]

Well, my point of view should be well known, I'm pretty much an idealist.

Our perception of reality creates reality. Not perhaps in a material sense, but in the sense that what you believe is real to you, so you are, to a large extent, creating the reality in which you operate.

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

that's just the way it is, av. Obviously. It's not even hard to show, either. for example, on a very basic level, let's say there's this girl with wide hips and large breasts. My kinda gal. I think she looks attractive. She looks attractive to me.
I see another girl that's really thin. She does not look attractive to me, she looks UNattractive to me.
But then you see those same girls, and you might percieve the exact opposite. The thin girl IS pretty to you, and the other girl IS unattractive.
you could say we just vary on opinion, but in reality our actual experiences of those women differ (mine is better, obviously).
But if I see that same girl with the wide hips and large breasts, say, drop kick a baby, well, that girl would BECOME ugly to me. I would literally find her unattractive. My reality would shift in accordance to my beliefs.

[The Laughing Man]

Your perception can indeed interpret reality in a subjective manner, but this points out there was something there for you to interpret before you got here. You cannot "create" something that already exists. You can only "describe" it to the best of your ability. Did X-Rays or Gamma Rays "exist" before we "created" them? I think some are bordering on saying "personal philosophy" creates reality, and that maybe we speak of different "types" of Reality altogether.

[Khaliban]

Is reincarnation a product of natural selection?

Reality is not the existence you want but the existence you have.

Your belief system began as a desire to please a care-giver, because of love, fear or frustration. This belief system is modified in adolescence and early adulthood while establishing independence. It is integrated into an overwhelming desire to be right.

Most arguments are about "being right" not "knowing the answer".

In a battle with the human ego, the universe has never lost.

Every belief system is ultimately wrong.

You walk into a garden. You see a new type of plant. You see no other versions of this plant anywhere. Can you tell if this plant grew naturally or was carefully bred?

Lack of proof sometimes means you're not smart enough to find it.

Memory benefits the individual. History benefits the society. Instinct benefits the race. Doesn't reincarnation benefit the species?

I repeat, is reincarnation a product of natural selection?

Remember, any answer you give is wrong.

[The Laughing Man]

Is reincarnation a product of natural contemplation?

Reality is the existence that preceded the existence you inhabit.

Your belief system began as a desire to please a care-giver, because of love, fear or frustration. This belief system is modified in adolescence and early adulthood while establishing independence. It is integrated into an overwhelming desire to know more.

Most arguments are about "being right" not "knowing the answer".heh.

In a battle with my penis, the penis has never lost.

Every belief system is ultimately inadequate.

You walk into a bar. You see a new type of hottie. You see no other versions of this hottie anywhere. Can you tell if this hottie comes here all the time, or was just stopping for a drink?

Lack of proof always means you're not aware enough to percieve it, or not brave enough to proceed without it.

Memory benefits the warrior. History benefits the ignorant. Instinct benefits the self. Doesn't reincarnation benefit the belief in Karma?

I repeat, is reincarnation a product of natural expression, or insufficient information?

Remember, any answer you give is subjective.

[Avatar]

Every belief system is ultimately wrong.

How Fraveshi of you Khaliban. Good post. I like it.

Oh Esmer, how can we know whether or not gamma rays were present before we "discovered" them?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

(not sure if you'll get the "Hulk" reference, was a popular tv show/comic book in America. Was "created" by exposure to Gamma Rays, heh.)


I think because we saw the effects of gamma rays before we found the cause? Effect=Cause? I hope we're not going down this "Are we really real" path. To the best of our abilities we can verify that we are real, and that should suffice. So this leads to the question, "Which came first, Jesus or the Hulk? Did exposure to Gamma rays "create" the Hulk, or was the Hulk already inside Jesus, waiting for Gamma Rays to reveal him"?

[Avatar]

I know about the Hulk, we have comics and movies too you know, but the reference still would've escaped me, cause I've never been much of a fan.

While I agree with you, that the effect was visible, the nature of the cause may have been determined by our search for it. (I'm teasing you. Mainly. )

--A

[The Laughing Man]

Avatar, you seem to be batting this topic around like a cat bored with a dead mouse. did you "lose your religion" on this one?

[Avatar]

Because I have no "religion," and do my best never to assume that I can't be wrong, I can't always be that emphatic.

The "really real" thing is fun for me, because I'm not convinced of it. On the whole though, it was a partly serious comment that I was leaving open for you...

...Could our search for the (any) cause have an effect on what we find? Does the very fact that we are looking for something, and the way we look for it, shape what we find to some extent?

--A

[[Syl]]

Certainly, Av. Look at the duality of light. Depending on the experiment, it's either a wave or a particle.

[Avatar]

There you go...it's Schrodinger all over again...the mere presence of an observer (and his method of observation) affects what is observed.

How can anybody suggest therefore that we're really real, if we don't know what real is in the first place?

--A

[The Laughing Man]

have you ever pinched yourself? or

[Avatar]

Doesn't matter. If I believe it should hurt, it's gonna. What is pain anyway but an electrical current that your brain interprets? Fake that instruction, and you'll have pain without injury. Inhibit it, and you'll have injury without pain.

--A

[The Laughing Man]

I don't see what difference it makes if it's "really real" or not. It still defines the parameters and conditions for your current existence, which seems to be centered on "opposing adversity" to "triumph over the self" or "conquer reality". So what if it's an "evil game"? Does that make life less worthwhile? Or more challenging?

[Avatar]

It doesn't make it less worthwhile in the slightest. It doesn't make any difference if it's "really" real, or we just imagine it's real. We're still here, and it's still now. And we have to live with it.

It's reality is actual in the only way that counts...that we perceive (or interpret if you like that better) it.

I think though, that an understanding of it as just that, a game, makes it even more fun...because it does, or should, remind you not to take things too seriously all the time. We've either missed the universe's punchline, or it hasn't been delivered yet. I'm not sure which. But that isn't stopping me.

--A