Metaphysics: Assurance of reality?
- Thread starter Mundane
- Start date
rey meustrus
Sponsor
Well, I was just trying to defend a subject that I like talking about. It's not to say that science is my only interest, just that it's a big one. The rest of you are handling the spiritual aspects fairly well, if I read something that interests me I'll respond about it (which probably means that I think I know better, but so is me...)
Passenger":2a7wnhwe said:
There's no such thing as a true reality, there's just different ways of perceiving what's around us, which is essencially matter, just matter. You can perceive matter by hearing it, seeing it, tasting it, touching it and smelling it. But what about people who are born blind? They aren't able to perceive reality through vision so they will never know what a form or a color is, for people who are born blind it is simply impossible to imagine both of this things and will live in a different reality from people who aren't blind. This applies to the other four senses.
So if you're a bit intelligent (and I am sure you are) you will now understand why there can't be a reality after death, because when you die your body will cease functioning and your brain will also cease perceiving what's around you and just...shut down. Dumb people fear death because they think too much about it and that's the only reason why the concept of afterlife was created.
But you bring in the concept of a soul. I think that soul is what people call the consciousness and personality of a person.
If you think a soul of a person is (lol) their ghost/spirit, then I laugh. The way you said the soul of a person leaves the body after it dies makes me think you do believe in ghosts. While there's no valid evidence that proves the existence of ghosts, it's also ridiculous to think of them as real. There's a much more logical explanation to consciousness and other mental states of the human mind, which is, in a very simple definition, the brain is nothing more than a very very very very (...) VERY complex computer. Like a computer, our brain works through electric impulses. It just gets more complicated from here and I am not educated enough to explain it, go read wikipedia if you want.
So as you can see there's no such thing as a "soul", whatever it would physically be. Just because Plato said we had a soul, it doesn't mean we do, he's not all knowing. If he lived today, I doubt he would believe in such a thing as a soul or even create his theory of Forms.
:box:
rey meustrus
Sponsor
Perhaps consciousness does arise from the brain, but I wouldn't call it a complex computer. It's not possible, even with infinitely powerful hardware, to fully simulate consciousness. This has been mathematically proven about thirty years ago, though I couldn't provide you with a link to it. I've only heard about this paper, and it's far too complicated for anybody without an MS in Math to understand.
faith in a reality/consciousness beyond the commonly perceived is illogical. It's expounding on the psychological predisposition of most humans: they need something to believe in. If you put your faith in science, math, and logic, you believe in logic. You can't believe in nothing.
That being said, one laughing at a person for believing that they have a spirit/soul is no different than them laughing at one who does not. We are all on this plain of existence. That is all science and logic can prove. But it is illogical and unintelligent to rule out the possibility that there could be alternate plains of existence, for we know well that the human brain is limited to comprehension of this reality.
Believing in this science and logic that things such as life after death couldn't exist in any plain is basically making our limited comprehension the ceiling which prevents us from striving to understand more. It defies what science truly is.
What I am getting at is, don't rule something out because you simply cannot comprehend it. It's like when a child cannot understand why his parents would punish him for doing wrong. Perhaps one day, we'll all grow up.
That being said, one laughing at a person for believing that they have a spirit/soul is no different than them laughing at one who does not. We are all on this plain of existence. That is all science and logic can prove. But it is illogical and unintelligent to rule out the possibility that there could be alternate plains of existence, for we know well that the human brain is limited to comprehension of this reality.
Believing in this science and logic that things such as life after death couldn't exist in any plain is basically making our limited comprehension the ceiling which prevents us from striving to understand more. It defies what science truly is.
What I am getting at is, don't rule something out because you simply cannot comprehend it. It's like when a child cannot understand why his parents would punish him for doing wrong. Perhaps one day, we'll all grow up.
rey meustrus
Sponsor
Alright, this really bothers me, I think you mean to say "plane," not "plain."
Saying that one "believes in logic"...that's fairly interesting, actually. I've heard some religious idiots talk about believing in science, which is a false statement because it compares objective and disprovable science to subjective, undisprovable religion. But to say that one believes in logic? That may be more true. Logic itself is a human construction. It's logical to bring an umbrella when it might rain. Why is that? Because we say it is. We believe it is logical. Most people believe in logic to some extent (everyone, really). The natural extension of logic is science, but like every other human thing, logic is subjective and relative to our individual experience. So, while something may seem logical to one person, it doesn't to another. Science goes a long way towards normalizing logic, with its centuries of development and its focus on objectivity, but logic in itself is still open to individual interpretation.
To clarify, one does not "believe" or have "faith" in science; it's an objective art which is, for the most part, beyond individual interpretation. One does, however, either agree with science or not; this is a subjective choice based on personal definition of logic. Those that disagree with science have little faith in logic for whatever reason. Personally, I see no reason why God must be illogical, and why He wouldn't use what science tells us as tools for constructing the universe. There's no reason why God can't have created the universe with a Bang.
There are still many things science can't explain, mainly about the topic of discussion. There is no objective way to discover what happens after death; all that we logically know is that once someone dies, he or she cannot come back to life. The common rational belief is that dead people can't talk to us, either, though some people doubt this. All we can do is believe in one thing or another, and it's not because it's true, but more because we want to think there's something good waiting for us and the ones we love after death.
Saying that one "believes in logic"...that's fairly interesting, actually. I've heard some religious idiots talk about believing in science, which is a false statement because it compares objective and disprovable science to subjective, undisprovable religion. But to say that one believes in logic? That may be more true. Logic itself is a human construction. It's logical to bring an umbrella when it might rain. Why is that? Because we say it is. We believe it is logical. Most people believe in logic to some extent (everyone, really). The natural extension of logic is science, but like every other human thing, logic is subjective and relative to our individual experience. So, while something may seem logical to one person, it doesn't to another. Science goes a long way towards normalizing logic, with its centuries of development and its focus on objectivity, but logic in itself is still open to individual interpretation.
To clarify, one does not "believe" or have "faith" in science; it's an objective art which is, for the most part, beyond individual interpretation. One does, however, either agree with science or not; this is a subjective choice based on personal definition of logic. Those that disagree with science have little faith in logic for whatever reason. Personally, I see no reason why God must be illogical, and why He wouldn't use what science tells us as tools for constructing the universe. There's no reason why God can't have created the universe with a Bang.
There are still many things science can't explain, mainly about the topic of discussion. There is no objective way to discover what happens after death; all that we logically know is that once someone dies, he or she cannot come back to life. The common rational belief is that dead people can't talk to us, either, though some people doubt this. All we can do is believe in one thing or another, and it's not because it's true, but more because we want to think there's something good waiting for us and the ones we love after death.
I absolutely love this stuff. I frequently try to convince my friends that I am God. I am God, after all. You disagree? Well, it doesn't matter, because my consciousness is the only thing that exists and the actions of all other people are controlled by a small part of my subconscious. Haha, you can't disprove that.
DO NOT PUT FAITH INTO MATHS BECAUSE IT IS BROKE!!!
We have a fraction, say 1/3. It's decimal equivalent is 0.3333 (recurring).
so 1/3 = 0.3333
3 x 1/3 = 3 x 0.3333 (recurring)
1 = 0.9999 (recurring)
Say, what?!
DO NOT PUT FAITH INTO MATHS BECAUSE IT IS BROKE!!!
We have a fraction, say 1/3. It's decimal equivalent is 0.3333 (recurring).
so 1/3 = 0.3333
3 x 1/3 = 3 x 0.3333 (recurring)
1 = 0.9999 (recurring)
Say, what?!
bashful crobat
Sponsor
Just because they do not simply equal 1 does not mean they are not equivalent to 1.
The example of 1/3:
If we can all agree that
1/3 = 0.333~
then we must also all agree that
3 x 1/3 = (3 x 1)/3 = 3 x 0.333~
All three expressions mean the same, and so all represent 1 as a real number by their transitive relation to one-another.
The example of 1/3:
If we can all agree that
1/3 = 0.333~
then we must also all agree that
3 x 1/3 = (3 x 1)/3 = 3 x 0.333~
All three expressions mean the same, and so all represent 1 as a real number by their transitive relation to one-another.
The true point of the matter, however, is missed. 1 can not truely exist because it is a man made qualitive judgement. Things in nature only coralate to this basic qualitive form because that is what we use for a basis. All of our knowledge is incorrect because we used a solid base for thought and assumed matter is a confined to what the eye perceives.....
This is one of the reasons drugs are considered and transential experience.
I belive that it was "Doors of Perception" that posed the original idea, but wouldn't it be interesting if, through the use of hallucinogetics, your brain is using receptors and pathways that it dosn't normally use? The theory goes that these receptors are actually less efficient ways to sense. What if synaesthesia is another way to perceive?
This is one of the reasons drugs are considered and transential experience.
I belive that it was "Doors of Perception" that posed the original idea, but wouldn't it be interesting if, through the use of hallucinogetics, your brain is using receptors and pathways that it dosn't normally use? The theory goes that these receptors are actually less efficient ways to sense. What if synaesthesia is another way to perceive?
rey meustrus
Sponsor
Math isn't broken, your calculator just isn't infinitely accurate. Infinite accuracy can only be simulated, which is why, for example, computers can't do calculus, and why for that matter we have to take shortcuts to do it anyway.
The 1/3 thing just proves that .999999~ = 1, that is to say, infinitely many 9's behind the decimal, equals one.
There's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to this concept, if you're up to it. Bottom line is, if you find a fault in math, it's more likely a fault of your tools, or even yourself, not in math itself. Math isn't designed for people to believe in it (like religion), it isn't designed to stand up to physical tests (like science), it isn't designed to be pretty (like art), and it isn't designed to be easy (like your mom). What it is designed for is to make sense. If something doesn't make sense, it is excised until someone can make it make sense. It is infallible because any and every addition to it must cross-reference to everything else and must obey all existing laws. Because it makes sense, it not only passes any test given, it is the standard by which all other tests are administered (even yours, which you get 0-100% on), and to some people, that makes math beautiful, and for some, it is something that faith can belong to. Hell, for some, it's even easy.
The 1/3 thing just proves that .999999~ = 1, that is to say, infinitely many 9's behind the decimal, equals one.
There's an entire Wikipedia page devoted to this concept, if you're up to it. Bottom line is, if you find a fault in math, it's more likely a fault of your tools, or even yourself, not in math itself. Math isn't designed for people to believe in it (like religion), it isn't designed to stand up to physical tests (like science), it isn't designed to be pretty (like art), and it isn't designed to be easy (
QuantumMindGames
Member
To the original question in this thread:
How can we prove that the physical reality is real and not just something our subconscious perceives?
Let me answer that question with another question:
How can we prove that the world was not created by god?
It's merely a belief system, much like every religion on the face of this planet. Metaphysics is just another way for a religion to pull in members, by using science terms to target those who don't have a religion. Many atheists go towards science, and have to believe in proof rather than blind faith. But isn't this just blind faith masked with so-called proof?
Yeah, metaphysics is attributed to philosophy... And it can also be attributed to Quantum Physics. Quantum Physics also has nothing in it to prevent matter from appearing out of nothing, and by using quantum physics in theory you could just think of something, and by the magical Law of Attraction the entire universe will shift to give you what you want.
Law of Attraction is actually just you paying more attention to what you want and taking actions that would lead you to that rather than something else you want. It's psychological, yes - but not universe-changing.
I'm sorry, but every time i hear about metaphysics I think of the psychobabble spouted out in the movies "The Secret" and "What the BLEEP Do We Know?" - both of which contained questionable talking heads, and on top of that, WTBDWK was created by a woman who quite literally claims she channels a 35,000 old Atlantian Warrior named Ramtha. Look it up.
I rambled a bit in this post, but I covered a few different related topics...
How can we prove that the physical reality is real and not just something our subconscious perceives?
Let me answer that question with another question:
How can we prove that the world was not created by god?
It's merely a belief system, much like every religion on the face of this planet. Metaphysics is just another way for a religion to pull in members, by using science terms to target those who don't have a religion. Many atheists go towards science, and have to believe in proof rather than blind faith. But isn't this just blind faith masked with so-called proof?
Yeah, metaphysics is attributed to philosophy... And it can also be attributed to Quantum Physics. Quantum Physics also has nothing in it to prevent matter from appearing out of nothing, and by using quantum physics in theory you could just think of something, and by the magical Law of Attraction the entire universe will shift to give you what you want.
Law of Attraction is actually just you paying more attention to what you want and taking actions that would lead you to that rather than something else you want. It's psychological, yes - but not universe-changing.
I'm sorry, but every time i hear about metaphysics I think of the psychobabble spouted out in the movies "The Secret" and "What the BLEEP Do We Know?" - both of which contained questionable talking heads, and on top of that, WTBDWK was created by a woman who quite literally claims she channels a 35,000 old Atlantian Warrior named Ramtha. Look it up.
I rambled a bit in this post, but I covered a few different related topics...
rey meustrus
Sponsor
No, science is distinct from belief. Faith and religion is about explaining things we can't understand, and by way of these explanations we get morals and rules, all of which we are expected to believe in to experience. Science is about understanding things. I won't say scientists are amoral, but there aren't any moral rules in science. The closest thing I can think of is the Hippocratic Oath, "Do no harm," which applies to medicine, not science as a whole. It's only easy to conflate science with religion when you associate it directly with atheism, and that association does not exist. All scientists, like most people, vary from not religious at all to extremely religious, and I wouldn't say there's much difference between scientists and everyone else in this respect.QuantumMindGames":2ikagy3i said:
Maybe not quantum physics specifically, but it still follows some universal physical laws, among which is the law of conservation of mass and energy. That's related to the e=mc^2 equation, which is how mass and energy are related according to Einstein. It's resolutely impossible to make something out of nothing according to the laws of physics (although it's given that sometimes, like under extreme pressure of the type you'd only see in a large black hole, these laws start to warble a bit)QuantumMindGames":2ikagy3i said:
QuantumMindGames":3iiz9kcw said:
You can't. You can't prove anything at all. And you can't decide which is more likely either, because no evidence can be proved to be true (and even if it could it would be subjective and relative). I don't commit to any beliefs, because I think that they are all equally valid, though I prefer some to others (I basically hate the idea of gods... mostly because uber-religious types piss me off, actually. Biased much =p).
I do, however, like these ideas. In our world, there are thousands of questions we don't know the answer to, on the nature of time, matter, etc. But if I were to believe that my consciousness was the only true existence, the only question would be how does it work, which in my mind means that it's much more likely. People's commitment to the world they perceive is hard-wired into the brain, no matter how logically they can look at things. It's like how people who totally believe in going to heaven when they die, no doubts at all, are still terrified of dying. Some people genuinely aren't, but being able to think things that go against natural instincts like that is pretty rare - and most people who think that way are generally regarded as crazy, which makes no sense at all. Why wouldn't you want to go to paradise?
QuantumMindGames
Member
mawk":1az9n8iv said:
first off... i don't remember posting that crap o.0
second off... let's just count those as jokes...
all that bull in my last post is retarded. I'm going to talk to my roommate about posting on my account, while he's probably high.
i strongly apologize for that post heh... what other damage has he done -.-
rey meustrus
Sponsor
What I think defines popular religions (those that haven't died out) is that they are constructed in such a way that it is impossible to disprove them. First, think about science. If somebody defied the law of gravity, it would disprove that law and cause science to become wholly invalid (until the physicists scrambled together some huge revisions). There are many things which can disprove science; it is valid only so long as these things don't happen.
Religion, however, can never be disproved. Judeo-Christian beliefs demand that there is a single omnipotent god, who sometimes solves problems and sometimes doesn't. He mostly did things way back before written history (Genesis) or at a time from which written history has not adequately survived (everything else). Even if we discovered a piece of written history which clearly said that something didn't happen, there's the high probability that that specific event wasn't exactly necessary (let's say David and Goliath was different...sure it would eliminate an important moral, but it wouldn't invalidate God at all), coupled with the possibility that the author was lying, because history is subjective.
Invisible omnipotent beings that respond at random cannot be disproved, while even something so obvious as gravity can be, but isn't. This is the major reason why religion is faith-based, and science is not, and why comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges.
Religion, however, can never be disproved. Judeo-Christian beliefs demand that there is a single omnipotent god, who sometimes solves problems and sometimes doesn't. He mostly did things way back before written history (Genesis) or at a time from which written history has not adequately survived (everything else). Even if we discovered a piece of written history which clearly said that something didn't happen, there's the high probability that that specific event wasn't exactly necessary (let's say David and Goliath was different...sure it would eliminate an important moral, but it wouldn't invalidate God at all), coupled with the possibility that the author was lying, because history is subjective.
Invisible omnipotent beings that respond at random cannot be disproved, while even something so obvious as gravity can be, but isn't. This is the major reason why religion is faith-based, and science is not, and why comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges.
rey meustrus":308nqjv8 said:
what lol
science is the never-ending pursuit of deductions. and the "law" of gravity is a theory. it can be disproven like any other damned theory because that's all science is: theories.
if suddenly down were up and apples began to float in the air, it'd simply be a case of "hey the theory is no longer relevant let's find out why and do some calculations on it"
theories provide deductive reasoning allowing people to make safer estimations. not a damned one theory is foolproof or 100% infallible and it's foolish to think of any of it as irrefutable fact.
and actually everything you do in life relies on a little faith. it's a leap of faith to take to assume that when you get out of bed you won't fall through the floor into the earth's core. it's a leap of faith to assume that the milk in your fridge is still safe to consume despite it being way before the expiration date. the diff isn't that one is faith-based and one isn't, it's that one is TOTALLY reliant on faith in abstract ideology while the other is just a structured system of checks and balances in the pursuit of finding reasons for why shit happens.
apparently that was all off-topic but i cant let these things be said about my sweet lady science ;-;
Actually I think it's pretty likely that antigravity exists. After all, most attractive forces also have repulsive forces (+ve influence repels other +ve influence & vice versa) so it makes logical sense that there is some force of gravitational repulsive force. Maybe matter and antimatter repel. Who knows?!
And Rey is wrong whilst Venetia is smart.
And Rey is wrong whilst Venetia is smart.
I like how far out this has gone from the point. As far as I have heard anti-gravity exists. I saw a fuckin' show about some Canadian dude who made it happen for the US government, then afterward they shut him down and stole all his shit. The same guy has made a battery that lasts 1000 years or more.