Knowledge of world inaccessible to senses

[student738]

I am concerned with the possibility of knowledge of a world inaccessible to both our senses and any extension thereof. I wish to discuss this apart from considerations of the possibility of direct implanatation or transfer of knowledge.

I believe that the possibility of such knowledge is quite straightforward. Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us. Briefly, we must first, by reliable methods, examine all that we take to be possible causes of this effect within the sensible world. If we have good reason to believe that our methods are reliable and we have good reason to believe that those which we take to be possible causes indeed exhaust the set of all possible causes, we are then left to just two conclusions. We may conclude either that the observed effect has no cause whatsoever (it was an uncaused event), or that the cause of the observed effect originates with a world inaccessible to our senses.

It might be suggested that a third conclusion is available to us. It might be suggested that having concluded our investigation and finding ourselves in this very predicament either gives us reason to believe that our methods are not reliable, or gives us reason to believe that our investigation has not exhausted all possible causes within the sensible world.

However, this third conclusion is untenable. Unless we assume a priori, both the impossibility of an uncaused event or happening, and the impossibility of the existence of a world inaccessible to our senses, our investigation producing no cause within the sensible world can not itself provide reason to believe that our methods are not reliable or that our investigation has not exhausted all possible causes within the sensible world. I can forsee no adequate reason to justify making both a priori assumptions.

What remains then, is to distinguish -- for the purpose of arriving at just one of the two conclusions available to us – between the conclusions a) that the observed effect has no cause whatsoever, and b) that the cause of the observed effect originates with a world inaccessible to our senses.

Sufficient support for (b) over and against (a) may be produced similarly to the means by which we produce support for any other conclusion over and against a conclusion of that sort which (a) is. This means is, repeatability.

Frequently, daily, we are able to produce justification for belief in causal relationships between a cause and an observed effect, over and against the conclusion that this observed effect has no cause whatsoever. We do so by repeatability.

While I believe repeatability alone is oftentimes sufficient, much more robust is an application of repeatability, testability. In order that we may most clearly apply testability to the general scenario at hand, the cause in question – a cause originating with a world inaccessible to our senses – must be one of at least two contributing causes.

In this scenario, there must exist a cause (or an effect) within the sensible world, as a result of which the cause in that world inaccessible to our senses produces the effect ultimately observed again in the sensible world. By repeated application of this test -- recalling that it is performed subsequent to an initial thorough investigation of that particular sort described above – and if the testing is successful, justification is produced for the belief in a contributing cause originating with a world inaccessible to our senses, ie. conclusion (b) over conclusion (a).

Justification and truth, hence, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that knowledge is possible in at least some but not necessarily all similar scenarios.

[Keith Russell]

But, our senses certainly seem to be part of the world.

To claim to know that knowledge is inaccessible to the senses, is to claim to have knowledge about the senses, which would be claiming to have knowledge of at least part of the world...

K

[JP2]

I more or less agree with the conclusions you've drawn, but I'm having some problems with your predicate: "Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us."

I assume that this was posed hypothetically, but nonetheless, I'm curious as to what you mean by "a world inaccessible to us (or our senses)"? Is it that the universe is divided up sharply into that which may be realised by empirical observation and that which may not? Is there any reason to suspect that this is the case? If there is, indeed, a "world inaccessible to us" - and that this world is therefore epistemically incomprehensible - would it be reasonable to presume that it can influence observable causal relationships (that is, that such an incomprehensible cause can produce an observable effect)?

To use a well-worn theistic argument, though we cannot directly observe wind (we cannot see it or taste it - and assume that we're inside so that we cannot feel it or hear it either) we know it's there by virtue of the effects it produces. By observing the "effect", the properties of the inobservable may, to some extent be realised. Though, gazing out from a window, we have no direct sensory evidence that wind exists, by looking out upon the rustling trees we can directly observe that there is an existant "effect" and make the causal inference - by habitual "repeatablity" or otherwise - that a cause for this event does indeed exist. By observing the effect wind produces - even if we presume that wind is not in any way directly observable - there is still enough empirical material available to speculate on what its essential nature may or may not be. What we cannot be in any doubt over, though (unless we possess a Humean skepticism regarding the legitimacy of identifying causal relationships) is that wind does, as a cause, exist.

Therefore, my question is, if this "inaccessible world" can directly interfere with otherwise observable causal relationships and that it can produce a comprehensible "effect" then to what extent is it wholly "inaccessible" (given that, at the very least, as a cause, we can be sure that, in some form, it exists)? Though it may exist on a plane beyond our direct sensory scope, surely we can deduce at least some of its properties from the effects it produces? And if we can, in this way, ascertain some of its properties and assure ourselves of its existence, then surely we can no longer say that it is "inaccessible"?

[Grimly Fiendish]

Originally posted by student738
Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us.

Your entire post hangs from the single piece of nonsense I have quoted above. To assume that an effect has it's cause in a world inaccesible to us is absurd. The principle of Causality holds.

As things are, there is no reality other than that which we experience via the Phenomenal. The Noumenal although directly inaccessible to us, is all there is.

You use too many words to no purpose.

Respectfully,

Grimly Fiendish.

[ZikZak]

Originally posted by student738
Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us.

This is a contradiction. If "world #2" is capable of causing observable effects in "our world," then world #2 is by definition accessible.

You're also making the incorrect assumption that all events have causes. Uncaused events occur all the time in the subatomic world.

[Starboy]

student738, you are a classic case of someone that desires to comment on reality without knowing much at all about reality. I understand it is very liberating but can at best produce a pile of gibberish which you have demonstrated very nicely. An ounce of actual knowledge is worth an ocean of speculation.

Starboy

[student738]

>>>>My computer is text-mode only here until I finish my new install, making it unusable (lynx). I will comment briefly. Yes, I mean, "inaccessible to our senses" rather than "inaccessible to us". I appreciate that at least someone caught this mistake; thank you those who were kind to me about it.

>>>>Do I assume that an uncaused event can not exist? I can't imagine that you could have read the entirety of my post and conclude that I merely assume this. I suggest specifically how we can distinguish from this conclusion, and how we do so frequently every day of our lives.

>>>>Am I a classic example of one who likes to comment on reality but knows little of it? I find that rather insulting, but that is what you are best at, isn't it? I make no claim that I am commenting on reality; I claim only to comment on what is possibly real. On another note, what do you think of mathematicians?

>>>>I will give a more thorough followup when I have access to a more modern computer system, or finish putting mine back how it was.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
What remains then, is to distinguish -- for the purpose of arriving at just one of the two conclusions available to us – between the conclusions a) that the observed effect has no cause whatsoever, and b) that the cause of the observed effect originates with a world inaccessible to our senses.

student738, you are so indoctrinated in the presumptions of your religion that you are completely oblivious to them. This is an excellent example of the gibberish that results.

Statement (a) assumes knowledge of reality that no one possesses nor is there indication that anyone does or will possesses such knowledge. One can concoct explanations of reality that posit effects with no cause but one can never be sure if the lack of cause is not due to ignorance. To presume a view of reality that you do not posses is a very religious thing to do.

Statement (b) betrays your religious presumptions, since it would require faith to believe it and in any case the condition of ignorance is indistinguishable from (a). The only reason to attempt to make the distinction is if you wanted to believe in something for which there is no evidence (faith).

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
On another note, what do you think of mathematicians?

I am fine with mathematicians. They do not presume to know what they do not know.

Starboy

[sophie]

student738 : Is this why unobserved occurances can produce so much speculation?

At least in observing an effect there is a transfer of information which is processed and moulded into knowledge of the event. It seems incredibly difficult to actually qualify in specific terms the actual cause of any event. Generally we can allude to a set of compound events which can repeatably produce an effect as the cause. The possibility of the invisible hand, a single actualiser remains out of the scope of our knowledge.

[Keith Russell]

student, you begin by assuming what you want to believe:
"I believe that the possibility of such knowledge is quite straightforward. Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us."

What reason do you have to suppose (assume) that an effect has a cause originating in a 'world' inaccessible to us?

K

[student738]

Starboy said:
"student738, you are so indoctrinated in the presumptions of your religion that you are completely oblivious to them."
I have not once here made an assumption based on a religious belief. To my knowledge I have not once advanced an argument for a religious position. I am speaking merely of what is possible, and what is possibly real. It's really quite disgusting that one can no be honest in his or her profile -- if that has contributed at all to your attitude toward me -- without apparently making it quite impossible for the likes of you to consider any proposition I advance on its merits, or any proposition as being other than a guised attempt to idoctrinate you, to trick you into admitting the truth of some obscure religious assertion or another, or of doing some other such nonsense.

Starboy, you obviously are quite uninterested in anything I have to say. You obviously are quite uninterested in carrying out conversations of what is or is not possible, and certainly not interesting for their own sake. Why do you continue to respond to me?

So far as you need be concerned -- if indeed you have no other interest -- I am merely discussing the number of angels that may dance on the head of a pin; if you're not interested in participating, which obviously you are not, please don't feel compelled to respond.

There is no "battle for religion" or "battle for naturalism" being fought here nor anywhere else in my postings, or even the thought of.

If I post, "10 verified empirical observations testifying to the truth of Glorious Religion," by all means, do get riled up about it.

But as it is now, I am at a complete loss to understand where you are coming from with your replies, or why you take me to mean as I do.

Now that I'm back, I'll get at responding to as many questions and criticisms in this thread as I can right now.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
I have not once here made an assumption based on a religious belief. To my knowledge I have not once advanced an argument for a religious position.

Student738, why are you positing the supernatural? If you will be honest with yourself you will find there is only one reason, to support religious explanations of reality. Unless you care to address the original issues that I brought up in my original post on this thread, this is and remains a religious discussion. Your monotonous posts do try my patience. If you want atheists to consider the supernatural as an explanative construct, you had better present a reason as to why they should do so; otherwise you are a thinly veiled religious proselytizer.

Starboy

[student738]

Keith Russell said:
""I believe that the possibility of such knowledge is quite straightforward. Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us."

What reason do you have to suppose (assume) that an effect has a cause originating in a 'world' inaccessible to us?"
I do not understand what is so unclear about what I have said. JP2 right away in the second reply seemed to understand more or less just what I meant.

I open by stating the hypothetical scenario I wish to consider. That is, I am stating that we assume for the sake or argument that X is the case; not that we -- or the hypothetical "knowers" in the scenario to follow -- know it to be the case. I had thought that would be obvious. I didn't imagine that anyone would take me to be merely assuming that it is actually the case that such a world or such an effect does as a matter of fact, exist. Perhaps I should have setup the scenario with the ever tedious Jones and Smith instead of "we", but seeing as how dry that is, I had supposed that it would not be needed.

I wish to conclude that, in some possible world where X is the case -- as I would think there is no objection to its being metaphysically possible in modal terms -- that knowledge of what I suggest is in such a world, possible by a means similar to that I suggest.

I am not making an argument for any god or for any religion.

I am offering this as a sort of precursor to, or round-about way of considering some of the issues with the possibility of knowledge of miracles and with the possibility of knowledge of violations of natural laws.

Does that clear up your confusion? I address this also to the many others who seem to have also, for whatever reason, been confused on this point.

[student738]

"Student738, why are you positing the supernatural? If you will be honest with yourself you will find there is only one reason, to support religious explanations of reality. Unless you care to address the original issues that I brought up in my original post on this thread, this is and remains a religious discussion. Your monotonous posts do try my patience. If you want atheists to consider the supernatural as an explanative construct, you had better present a reason as to why they should do so; otherwise you are a thinly veiled religious proselytizer."
Eek, you replied even before I got the next post out. Is it your lunch hour? Take a look at that one.

edit:
And as for not trying your patience, that's really the least of my concerns. You're welcome to ignore me anytime you like; in fact, I encourge you to do so. I won't hold it against you, honest.

[Darth Dane]

In a computer game, the participants have "AI". I press a button and whopty a new unit is produced. The other units observe this and act accordingly(Friend = do nothing, foe = kill) They can not get to know the world I am in, and have no means of verifying if there is a world outside their own or where the new unit came from. They say "well we had sex."

We can program "AI" to do tests and so on, but not that there is something on the other side. There is only cause and effect. But you as the player know exactly what is on the other side...namely You.

Now imagine that you program the possibility for the "AI" to "meditate" and actually gain knowledge of the game it is in, to be aware it is in a game. Buddha: Life is an illusion.


Now by no means within the game, through their normal senses(5) can they ascertain the truth of this, only by transcending.

Other units say "No we only have the phenomenal world, only what we can sense, via our senses(5) is Real. The rest is mumbo jumbo"



Make sense?









DD - Love & Laughter

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
Eek, you replied even before I got the next post out. Is it your lunch hour? Take a look at that one.

edit:
And as for not trying your patience, that's really the least of my concerns. You're welcome to ignore me anytime you like; in fact, I encourge you to do so. I won't hold it against you, honest.

student738, you can hypothesize anything you like. There is no reason to expect others to see your day dreaming as anything more than that unless you provide some reason as to why they shouldn't.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Other units say "No we only have the phenomenal world, only what we can sense, via our senses(5) is Real. The rest is mumbo jumbo"

Make sense?

DD - Love & Laughter

Darth Dane, what you are essentially claiming is that revelation is an acceptable way of knowing reality. You are also implying that it is more reliable than knowledge gained by actual observation and exploration or reality. This proposition can be tested and when it is, is usually found to be bogus. There was a time when it was a widely held idea. Times have changed. Get over it.

Starboy

[Darth Dane]

Darth Dane, what you are essentially claiming is that revelation is an acceptable way of knowing reality.

Yes, why not?

You are also implying that it is more reliable than knowledge gained by actual observation and exploration or reality.

No, I made no such claim, so please don't put words in my mouth :)

This proposition can be tested and when it is, is usually found to be bogus. There was a time when it was a widely held idea. Times have changed. Get over it.

It could be part of the programming, that the brain will show up as "malfunctioning" when you get a revealation, to those who don't believe in it. Just so there has to be a leap of faith?



Edit: The senses(5) work inside the box(creation) But what about "outside"?





DD - Love & Laughter

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
[i]Edit: The senses(5) work inside the box(creation) But what about "outside"?

DD - Love & Laughter

DD, could be you are onto something. Maybe the religious feel that they are trapped inside a box where the non-religious are very comfortable in their own skins and see the great benefits of understanding through knowledge tested against actual reality.

Starboy

[Darth Dane]

Maybe the religious feel that they are trapped inside a box where the non-religious are very comfortable in their own skins and see the great benefits of understanding through knowledge tested against actual reality.

Yes, we should make this place a paradise as well shouldn't we? Why should we discard the marvels of science?
Why should we discard the mechanics of this earth, and not work by them?
They are great aids for this life on earth.

I do not forego the blessings and knowledge we have gained through science, such would be folly in my eyes.

But on the other hand, science cannot explain the "before and after" of Life on earth.


To know that red hot iron will burn, is a very usefull thing for Life. to know how to warm it up so we can bend it and make an axe, is a marvel to me.










DD - Love & Laughter

[Starboy]

DD, I am glad to see that you recognize the importance of reality. I think you take it too far when you confuse reality with what is imagined. Don’t get me wrong, imagination is a great thing, but it becomes even greater when we understand the difference between imagination and reality. If you wish to live in your private imaginings that is your business, however when you try to get others to share your illusions, that is bordering on mental illness if not outright fraud. Unless of course you pass it off as art. But DD, that is not what the religious do. It is not what you are doing. You are trying to peddle those imaginings as if they were reality. That is fraud. The honest person would admit when they don’t know something instead of pretending to know something that they couldn’t possibly know. But claiming to know something you couldn’t possibly know is the essence of revelation and it is fraud.

Starboy

[student738]

Starboy said:
"student738, you can hypothesize anything you like. There is no reason to expect others to see your day dreaming as anything more than that unless you provide some reason as to why they shouldn't."
This is the last time I will reply to you Starboy. I am going to put these in as simple, clear, and loud as terms as I possibly can so that you do not miss it.

I answered these criticisms right in front of your face! My answer is that you are completely missing what it is that I am speaking of.

Yes, it is "day dreaming". I have told you again and again Starboy that it is nothing more than this. I am absolutely serious when I say this.

Look at the blasted post I referred you to quite specifically. It is addressed to Keith Russell and all others raising the same issue, including yourself (although they were kind enough to put the issue in more reasonable terms). I am not making an empirical claim. I am not offering a proof for or evidence of the "supernatural". I am not suggesting that we have reason to believe in miracles or gods.

I am making an assumption for the sake of argument, in a hypothetical scenario. Again, see the referenced post.

Are you completely unable to grasp that I am not making any statement about what as a matter of fact is the case, other than suggesting what in modal terms is possibly the case?

I have no objection whatsoever if you have no interest in such theorizing. It does not matter to me if you do not consider it to be "philosophy" at all.

What I am asking you is that if you have no interest in discussing the matter in these terms, in terms of this hypothetical scenario, that you please refrain from commenting further.

Do you understand me quite clearly now? I am stating that I have no interest in further communication with you.

If you want to discuss proofs of or evidence for the "supernatural", take it to Existence of Gods.

If you want to discuss proofs of or evidence for miracles, take it to Science and Skepticism.

Neither is being discussed here as per the Philosophy forum rules.

That is the end of it. Yes Starboy, I am putting my fingers in my ears and pretending that I can not hear you. Criticisms are welcome. Direct them to /dev/null.

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

OK! =)

Anyone interested in further discussion of the topic thread, I refer you to the reply I have just offered to Keith Russell and those raising similar issues.

Because it has lost in the mess of trash (yes!), I will quote it again here unless it can just be linked to:

Keith Russell said:
"I believe that the possibility of such knowledge is quite straightforward. Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us."

What reason do you have to suppose (assume) that an effect has a cause originating in a 'world' inaccessible to us?"
"I do not understand what is so unclear about what I have said. JP2 right away in the second reply seemed to understand more or less just what I meant.

I open by stating the hypothetical scenario I wish to consider. That is, I am stating that we assume for the sake or argument that X is the case; not that we -- or the hypothetical "knowers" in the scenario to follow -- know it to be the case. I had thought that would be obvious. I didn't imagine that anyone would take me to be merely assuming that it is actually the case that such a world or such an effect does as a matter of fact, exist. Perhaps I should have setup the scenario with the ever tedious Jones and Smith instead of "we", but seeing as how dry that is, I had supposed that it would not be needed.

I wish to conclude that, in some possible world where X is the case -- as I would think there is no objection to its being metaphysically possible in modal terms -- that knowledge of what I suggest is in such a world, possible by a means similar to that I suggest.

I am not making an argument for any god or for any religion.

I am offering this as a sort of precursor to, or round-about way of considering some of the issues with the possibility of knowledge of miracles and with the possibility of knowledge of violations of natural laws.

Does that clear up your confusion? I address this also to the many others who seem to have also, for whatever reason, been confused on this point."

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
I am making an assumption for the sake of argument, in a hypothetical scenario. Again, see the referenced post.

student738, a hypothetical scenario is posited for the purposes of making a point or projecting its consequences. If you do not wish to make a point or wish to project any consequences then why do you bring up the supernatural hypothesis in the first place? If you are looking for atheists to provide them for you, [insult deleted].

Starboy

{Starboy, keep your opinions on others' intelligence to yourself. ~Philosoft}

Sorry about that Philosoft.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
I am offering this as a sort of precursor to, or round-about way of considering some of the issues with the possibility of knowledge of miracles and with the possibility of knowledge of violations of natural laws.

Did you have any particular miracles in mind? Or are you saying that it is only a miracle if it does violate "natural laws"?

Starboy

[Darth Dane]

You are trying to peddle those imaginings as if they were reality.

To me it Is Reality, along side yours. My revelation, is to you a "brain malfunction", but to me the proff of something more to Reality.

The honest person would admit when they don’t know something instead of pretending to know something that they couldn’t possibly know. But claiming to know something you couldn’t possibly know is the essence of revelation and it is fraud.

I know, that what I say to you will be seen as belief. But you claim on the other hand that I can't know what I know, but only because you don't know what I know. You see if you knew what I know, you would not call it a fraud, because your own experience tells you that it is true.

What I have experienced, you can experience as well.

How is it that I can't possibly know this?







DD - Love & Laughter

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
I know, that what I say to you will be seen as belief. But you claim on the other hand that I can't know what I know, but only because you don't know what I know. You see if you knew what I know, you would not call it a fraud, because your own experience tells you that it is true.

What I have experienced, you can experience as well.

How is it that I can't possibly know this?

DD - Love & Laughter

DD, if only you can experience it and no one else can, then it is your imagining. It is only when we can look at each other and say, 'did you see what I saw' that it is a candidate for being real. It is fraud when people that know better confuse imaginings with reality and then try to convince everyone that it is real.

Starboy

[Ojuice5001]

There have been plenty of times when there was a knock on the door that my roommate couldn't hear, but I did, or vice versa, and there really was someone at the door. On the other hand, there have been knocks on the door that we both heard that were no such thing; there was no one at the door. It makes sense to be more skeptical, but that can't be your sole criterion.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
It makes sense to be more skeptical, but that can't be your sole criterion.

What other criterion are you suggesting?

Starboy

[Darth Dane]

DD, if only you can experience it and no one else can, then it is your imagining. It is only when we can look at each other and say, 'did you see what I saw' that it is a candidate for being real. It is fraud when people that know better confuse imaginings with reality and then try to convince everyone that it is real.

I have met others who have experienced, afai can tell, the same as I have. Thus negating it being just in my imagination?

They too can't objectively show it, but never the less we agree on it.





DD - Love & Laughter

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
I have met others who have experienced, afai can tell, the same as I have. Thus negating it being just in my imagination?

They too can't objectively show it, but never the less we agree on it.

DD - Love & Laughter

DD, I said it was a candidate for reality. There is such a thing as mass hallucination. It happens because people have a tendency to see what they want to see, especially if there are other people egging them on.

Starboy

[starling]

Originally posted by student738
I am concerned with the possibility of knowledge of a world inaccessible to both our senses and any extension thereof.
But then ey says
Suppose that we observe some effect; this effect is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us.

I think I see the confusion. That's exactly how we extend our senses: by observing something that is the result of a cause in a world inaccessible to us. I can't see radio waves, but I can hear my radio converting and amplifying the waves into sound. For all intents and purposes, radio waves are inaccessible to us and don't affect us at all despite what some people selling magnetic bracelets say.

Radio waves are a theory assuming there is a cause to the fact that radio antennae resonate with each other, and speculating on what that cause could only be. What I think you're asking is if something happens without any perceivable cause, then perhaps that cause was something beyond our universe? Here's an answer: if a cause was in our own universe but didn't affect us directly, or was in another universe beyond our own, could we tell the difference? Is there any difference?


Starling

[Starboy]

Originally posted by starling
I can't see radio waves, but I can hear my radio converting and amplifying the waves into sound. For all intents and purposes, radio waves are inaccessible to us and don't affect us at all despite what some people selling magnetic bracelets say.

Good point starling. There are people that pickup radio stations in their fillings. I suppose these people have a first hand experience with radio waves. It would be interesting to see how such a person would explain the voices in their head if they knew nothing about radio.

Morse Code and Radio Transmissions (http://www.art-rageous.net/MorseCode.html)

Starboy

[John Page]

Originally posted by Starboy
DD, if only you can experience it and no one else can, then it is your imagining. It is only when we can look at each other and say, 'did you see what I saw' that it is a candidate for being real. It is fraud when people that know better confuse imaginings with reality and then try to convince everyone that it is real.
Sungirl:

Are you asserting that a phenomenon is not real unless two or more homo sapiens sapiens agree they observed it?

[Starboy]

Originally posted by John Page
Sungirl:

Are you asserting that a phenomenon is not real unless two or more homo sapiens sapiens agree they observed it?

No Joanne Paragraph, I'm not. The reality of phenomena should have little to do with the observer. The question under discussion IMO revolved around the reliability of objective observation vs. religious revelation. A single person could get a very warped view of reality if they couldn't compare notes with someone else to at least try to differentiate the imagined from what is likely to be real, especially those with very active imaginations. Percival Lowell’s canals of Mars are a good example of this. Viewing the same phenomena by two or more people and then comparing notes is essentially what is meant by an objective observation, the more people the merrier and if the observations can be spread across time, space and culture, better still. A single person will always be subjective. We are such social creatures that we check with each other all the time about what we commonly perceive that most people take our common perception of reality for granted. Revelation is a subjective experience that is proclaimed to be real. It may be real, but if only one person can experience it and no one else even if they try then the experience is most likely to be imagined. Since science strives to be objective and religion is unabashedly a subjective activity, it is more likely that the reality claims of science will be more reliable than the revelatory reality claims of religion.

Starboy

[John Page]

Originally posted by Starboy No Joanne Paragraph, I'm not.
:)
Originally posted by Starboy The question under discussion IMO revolved around the reliability of objective observation vs. religious revelation.
I read it as more to do with the limits of human knowledge and understanding.
Originally posted by Starboy Revelation is a subjective experience that is proclaimed to be real.
Eureka! (Archimedes).

Subjective experiences are real. I think you're saying the revalation does not accurately reflect the reality external to the person experiencing it.
Originally posted by Starboy Since science strives to be objective and religion is unabashedly a subjective activity, it is more likely that the reality claims of science will be more reliable than the revelatory reality claims of religion.
How about "Minds using scientific methods appear more likely to arrive at a better understanding of reality than minds relying upon unexamined revalation"?

Cheers, John

[Starboy]

Originally posted by John Page
Subjective experiences are real. I think you're saying the revalation does not accurately reflect the reality external to the person experiencing it.

Yes and no. Subjective experiences may be real. However if you want to improve your odds that they are real it is best to try to observe the phenomenon with as many people in an independent and unbiased fashion as possible and then compare notes. You see if only Archimedes could observe his principle and no one else then we would not be talking about it.

As for revelation, it is most likely to not accurately reflect external reality. Most such revelatory experiences are revealed metaphorically like a dream. In many cases they are dreams. They are no more likely to be real than a dream. As far as I can tell what separates a dream from a revelation is the claim by the dreamer that they represent external reality. Then there are the bald faced revealers of reality like the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, Jr. That sort seems to rely on the principle of gullibility, the more fantastic the lies the more likely people will believe it. Even if they catch you in a lie just deny it. As long as you pander to their hopes and fears they will believe just about anything you say. Such revelations are not meant to be about reality but to manipulate people.

Originally posted by John Page
How about "Minds using scientific methods appear more likely to arrive at a better understanding of reality than minds relying upon unexamined revalation"?

Cheers, John

I suppose if elbows could do it then we wouldn’t have to rely on “minds”. Are you suggesting a replacement?

Seriously, if what you mean by better is more reliable, then yes. But it is not because of the “mind” per say, it is because we have stumbled upon techniques that are used by science to explore reality with some effectiveness. In many cases those techniques are successful not because of the strengths of the “mind” but because they compensate for its weaknesses.

Starboy

[John Page]

Originally posted by Starboy
Yes and no. Subjective experiences may be real.
I think you misunderstand. Subjective experiences are real. We're just discussing the relationship between those experiences and non-mental reality.
Originally posted by Starboy
As for revelation, it is most likely to not accurately reflect external reality. Most such revelatory experiences are revealed metaphorically like a dream.
Truth is metaphoric. The "experiencer" does not know whether a revelation accurately reflects reality a priori. All you are doing is defining revelations rather than describing their characteristics. I could argue that we only come to know a truth through revelation, i.e. when we finally "get it".
Originally posted by Starboy
I suppose if elbows could do it then we wouldn’t have to rely on “minds”. Are you suggesting a replacement?
Irrelevant. If we think using our elbows you might be on to something. Same as applies to elbows for asses, assuming you can tell one from t'other.
Originally posted by Starboy
Seriously, if what you mean by 'better' is 'more reliable', then yes.
More reliable is better in this case.

I used "better" deliberately because its a term that is relative to the criteria applied, "more reliable" on the other hand implies we have an absolute measure and I know of no such thing. In general, therefore, I think better is better.

Cheers, John

[Starboy]

Originally posted by John Page
I think you misunderstand. Subjective experiences are real. We're just discussing the relationship between those experiences and non-mental reality.

I guess I did misunderstand. You were getting semantic on me. I suppose the experience would be real if the person was not lying about having it. But I am not concerned about those kinds of experiences. What concerns me is the reality claims of the revealer. Especially those claims that are posited to be unverifiable because they are made about the supernatural.

Originally posted by John Page
Truth is metaphoric. The "experiencer" does not know whether a revelation accurately reflects reality a priori. All you are doing is defining revelations rather than describing their characteristics. I could argue that we only come to know a truth through revelation, i.e. when we finally "get it".

“Truth” is also a presumption about reality and is something philosophers are fond of using, especially in the case where they confuse “Truth” with reality. I am not concerned about “experiencer”s that do not know if their revelations accurately reflect reality. It is the “experiencer”s that do claim they reflect reality that concern me. You see, scientists don’t claim to deal in “Truth”. That is for philosophers. Scientists don’t really claim to “get it”. What they do is claim to do is offer explanations of reality that are supported by objective observations. The better those explanations can predict previously unknown phenomenon that can and can’t happen the better the science. That doesn’t make the explanations “true” or even close to reality it just makes them effective.

You see John Page, you don’t have to “get” reality to be in reality. You don’t have to know a damned thing about your computer or auto to use them. They work no matter what is going on in your “mind”. The same goes for scientific theories, I do not have to “get” quantum mechanics to use it to make predictions about reality. Nothing has to be revealed to you at all, because you are in reality no matter what your “mind” might think otherwise.

Originally posted by John Page
Same as applies to elbows for asses, assuming you can tell one from t'other.

I can usually tell the difference two out of three times. In your case I’m not sure.

Originally posted by John Page
More reliable is better in this case.

I used "better" deliberately because its a term that is relative to the criteria applied, "more reliable" on the other hand implies we have an absolute measure and I know of no such thing. In general, therefore, I think better is better.

Cheers, John

Please explain how “more reliable” implies an absolute measure.

Starboy

[Hugo Holbling]

Originally posted by Starboy
You see, scientists don’t claim to deal in “Truth”. That is for philosophers. Scientists don’t really claim to “get it”. What they do is claim to do is offer explanations of reality that are supported by objective observations. The better those explanations can predict previously unknown phenomenon that can and can’t happen the better the science. That doesn’t make the explanations “true” or even close to reality it just makes them effective.

This is a very interesting and staunchly instrumentalist view of science, Starboy. You may be right, of course, but there are plenty of scientists who are realists and who claim that statements about reality have a truth value.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Hugo Holbling
This is a very interesting and staunchly instrumentalist view of science, Starboy. You may be right, of course, but there are plenty of scientists who are realists and who claim that statements about reality have a truth value.

They may say that in person, but what goes on the record as published work generally doesn't reflect that point of view. And just about every one of them that I have cornered will admit that it is "true" until it isn't.

Starboy

[Darth Dane]

I suppose the experience would be real if the person was not lying about having it.

I am not lying ;)

Especially those claims that are posited to be unverifiable because they are made about the supernatural.

My claim is verifiable.


Lets imagine that my experience was actually an insight into the quantum level, where all is One. One Web, with many strings.

I can't say if that is what it was, but it would fit.

objective observations

Isn't this a contradiction in terms? No one can observe anything objectively. All observances are by their nature subjective no?


Oh, and many millions have said that they have had experiences that can't be verified scientifically, yet haven't stopped believeing in them.

If it is mass hallucination, across time and space, then that is quite the marvel.

I mean Jews in the middle east, hindu's in the east, Indians in the west. All have said that there is something more to the world than meets the eye. They couldn't have met eachother then, yet say similar things.

No smoke without some fire?










DD - Love & Laughter

[Darth Dane]

And just about every one of them that I have cornered will admit that it is "true" until it isn't

So until you have a similar experience, your present POV is "true"?






DD - Love & Laughter

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
And just about every one of them that I have cornered will admit that it is "true" until it isn't

So until you have a similar experience, your present POV is "true"?

DD - Love & Laughter

No, why do you say that? I do not confuse "truth" with reality nor do I claim to know all of reality. All I claim is that there are techniques of exploring reality that are commonly referred to as scientific that result in explanations of reality that anyone can experience for themselves. These explanations reliably reveal phenomenon that anyone can experience whether they believe in or understand the explanations or not.

Starboy

[Darth Dane]

...nor do I claim to know all of reality.

So in extension, you don't know that angels do not exist, you believe they do not based on what you know of reality through scientific approach, yes?


Since you don't know all of Reality, it could be possible that there is a world inaccesiable to our 5 senses?






DD - Love & Laughter

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
[B]Since you don't know all of Reality, it could be possible that there is a world inaccesiable to our 5 senses?

Not in any meaningful sense. Becuase if it was not accessible to my senses, I could never interact with it, and it could never interact with me.

So even if it did exist, why would I care? However, the one thing we would know for certain is that anyone who claimed to be able to see and interact with this allegedly existing world would be a liar - becuase, after all, it is as inacessible to their senses as to mine.

But there is no reason whatsoever to think or assume or hope that such a world exists in the first place.

[Darth Dane]

However, the one thing we would know for certain is that anyone who claimed to be able to see and interact with this allegedly existing world would be a liar - becuase, after all, it is as inacessible to their senses as to mine.


You are in contact with it. It is called the sixth sense.

Which sense is connected with memory?

How do you acces your memory?

Through your eyes? Or ears? Or any of the other senses(5)?

Through your conciousness. But since so much is in the sub-concious we are not aware of what goes on there.






DD - Love & Laughter

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Darth Dane

You are in contact with it. It is called the sixth sense.

Which sense is connected with memory?

How do you acces your memory?

Through your eyes? Or ears? Or any of the other senses(5)?

Through your conciousness. But since so much is in the sub-concious we are not aware of what goes on there.


None of this posits or supports the claim that any supernatural world exists. If I have memory, then this memory, whatever else it may be, does not fit the descirpotion of something intangible an un-experiencable.

I reckon I access my memory in a slightly messier form of data retrieval used by computers. Data is recorded on material objects and sythesised in a computational space we refer to as "mind". Nothing immaterrial, supernatural, or beyon sensation (almost be definition).

[Darth Dane]

does not fit the descirpotion of something intangible and un-experiencable

Your memory is untangible and inaccessability to me, yet I believe you have it.


And note, I have never said that it can't be experienced.





DD - Love & Laughter

[contracycle]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
[B]
Your memory is untangible and inaccessability to me, yet I believe you have it.

So is the specific data on my PC. Nonetheless, in both cases, you admit the general pheonomenon of memory is material. The fact that individual perpsective exists does not alter this admission.


And note, I have never said that it can't be experienced.

If it can be experienced, it can be recorded, experimented on, reproduced and in all ways be subject to the sctinific method.

If you can experience it, so can our tools.Edit: and you have said it could not be experienced, becuase you claimed it would not be aceessible to our 5 senses.

[John Page]

Originally posted by Starboy
You were getting semantic on me.
Yes, because you didn't seem to understand the meaning of the words.
Originally posted by Starboy
I suppose the experience would be real if the person was not lying about having it.
You suppose[/i]? No supposing about it. Do you agree "A person's experience is real if they are accurately reporting it"?
Originally posted by Starboy
[B]What concerns me is the reality claims of the revealer. Especially those claims that are posited to be unverifiable because they are made about the supernatural.
Concern agreed, I suggest one looks for proof within the mind of the proponent that the subject of the claim has no referent in external physical reality. With regard to the OP, one might then be able to verify that the experience/knowledge came from internally generated sense data. Seems like we need mind probes for this one....
Originally posted by Starboy
“Truth” is also a presumption about reality and is something philosophers are fond of using, especially in the case where they confuse “Truth” with reality.
I find it deeply ironic that you are the one claiming to know the truth about reality. :)
Seriously, though, it raises the question of what "truth" is. See link to my thoughts here. (http://www.reconciliationism.org/ontologic.htm#_Toc4165874)
Originally posted by Starboy
Please explain how “more reliable” implies an absolute measure.
Because it implies an independent, objective (i.e. absolute) means of verifying what is more reliable.

Cheers, John

[Darth Dane]

Nonetheless, in both cases, you admit the general pheonomenon of memory is material

I did no such thing. Afaik, the capacity for memory in humans, is infinite. Since the brain is finite, you would expect the memory to be the same.

Consider all you have experienced in yor life, in my case 27+ years of memory, all of this should be stored in your brain.

If it can be experienced, it can be recorded, experimented on, reproduced and in all ways be subject to the sctinific method.

Well, when a brain can be created synthetically with conciousness as ours, sure. But when? It seems a very far off goal, if possible to obtain at all.

If you can experience it, so can our tools.Edit: and you have said it could not be experienced, because you claimed it would not be aceessible to our 5 senses.

It is accesible to our sixth sense, our conciouness.

The 5 senses translate all the input they can handle to the conciousness. But we can also have direct input to conciousness, thus circumventing our 5 senses.

Like when we are dreaming. Our senses are not influential in our dreams are they?
I can fly in my dreams(at times) on my own will because I realize I am dreaming.






DD - Love & Laughter

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by Starboy
What other criterion are you suggesting?

Starboy

Well, mainly I mean fitting in with the rest of our knowledge. I think that a supernatural claim should be taken seriously insofar as it fits in with the rest of our knowledge. For instance, we see that this world has numerous entites at work in it; this means that polytheistic experiences, which portray the supernatural as being very pluralistic, are pass this test better than some others. Or, if we notice that there is a lot of cyclilic activity in the world, and a certain Hindu sect says that their mystical experiences reveal a kind of cyclilic pattern, this too speaks in favor of this Hindu sect.

I know materialists interpret this principle to mean that all supernatural claims are suspect since they are inconsistent with the material world. And if they are talking about some miraculous violation of natural laws (along the lines of the Red Sea), I agree. But to make this objection work in regard to all supernatural claims, you have to make an assumption: that the most important thing about the material world is that it's made of matter--if you follow me.

[Darth Dane]

....And if they are talking about some miraculous violation of natural laws

Miracles are not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know about nature - St Augustine.

:p





DD - Love & Laughter

[John Page]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Miracles are not contrary to nature...... - St Augustine.
Where can I find his supporting evidence to prove that miracles are natural phenomena?

[Darth Dane]

Where can I find his supporting evidence to prove that miracles are natural phenomena?

I don't know where you will find his supporting evidence.


To me it is a miracle to see a bird fly, a flower growing. Life. That we have conciousness.



The universe is entropic, yet Life/conciousness is the opposite. Conciousness has a "natural" tendency to create more order in the universe.

We can see a house that turns to rubble, but we won't see rubble turn into a house. Conciousness creates order in Chaos.







DD - Love & Laughter

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Darth Dane
So in extension, you don't know that angels do not exist, you believe they do not based on what you know of reality through scientific approach, yes?

Of course I do not know that angels do not exist. The fact that they are unknown to exist is really not that important to me since there is a mathematical infinity of things I don’t know to exist. What can I or anyone else do with or about things we do not know of? People who go on and on about things that are not known to exists without any credible evidence or effort to discover those unknowns are likely to be liars and frauds.

Originally posted by Darth Dane
Since you don't know all of Reality, it could be possible that there is a world inaccesiable to our 5 senses?

DD - Love & Laughter

Let me ask you this DD, forget about the five senses, this is a more fundamental question. Do you think that everything that could ever be imagined, no matter how it conflicts with anything else would be real? Do you think that the impossible scenes of buildings and people as painted by M.C. Escher could ever be real buildings in a real place? In other words do you concede that if it is likely that there are things that are imagined that could be real that there may also be imaginings that could never be real?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Well, mainly I mean fitting in with the rest of our knowledge. I think that a supernatural claim should be taken seriously insofar as it fits in with the rest of our knowledge. For instance, we see that this world has numerous entites at work in it; this means that polytheistic experiences, which portray the supernatural as being very pluralistic, are pass this test better than some others. Or, if we notice that there is a lot of cyclilic activity in the world, and a certain Hindu sect says that their mystical experiences reveal a kind of cyclilic pattern, this too speaks in favor of this Hindu sect.

I know materialists interpret this principle to mean that all supernatural claims are suspect since they are inconsistent with the material world. And if they are talking about some miraculous violation of natural laws (along the lines of the Red Sea), I agree. But to make this objection work in regard to all supernatural claims, you have to make an assumption: that the most important thing about the material world is that it's made of matter--if you follow me.

Consider this Ojuice5001, there is a marketplace of explanations. Some of these include supernatural constructs and some do not. If you are shopping for an explanation that can help you deal with existence wouldn’t you go for the one that was most successful at predicting and controlling that existence? I understand that many may have a different criterion. They may seek explanations that make them feel better. This is about the only reasonable justification I can think of for accepting many of the explanations that contain supernatural constructs. There are many other selection criteria and there are many people that mix and match. Now don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with people shopping for explanations that make them feel good or make their family feel good or whatever. What bugs me is when they insist that those explanations are better at explaining reality than explanations that are demonstrably better than those they advocate. Such people are liars and frauds or worse yet superstitious idiots! Are you one of those people?

Starboy

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by Starboy
Consider this Ojuice5001, there is a marketplace of explanations. Some of these include supernatural constructs and some do not. If you are shopping for an explanation that can help you deal with existence wouldn’t you go for the one that was most successful at predicting and controlling that existence? I understand that many may have a different criterion. They may seek explanations that make them feel better. This is about the only justification I can think of for accepting many of the explanations that contain supernatural constructs. Then again there are those that shop for both. Now don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with people shopping for explanations that make them feel good. What bugs me is when they insist that those explanations are better at explaining reality than explanations that are demonstrably better than those they advocate. Such people are liars and frauds or worse yet superstitious idiots! Are you one of those people?

Starboy

Decidedly not. I think that our supernatural knowledge must necessarily be more fallible than our knowledge of the natural world. The proof of it is simple: even the most thorough supernaturalists still use their natural knowledge the most in everyday life. There's no justification for setting the value of supernatural explanations at zero, but equally you can't consider them anywhere near as reliable as science and technology. That is partly due to historical factors, but mostly due to the very nature of what kind of questions are answered by faith and reason.

Science deals with things that are ultimately quanitative. This means anything that can be measured. Anything that can be measured is subject to the laws of mathematics. The laws of mathematics are necessary truths, therefore science is ultimately about necessary truths (however much it may appear to deal with contingencies).

Religion deals with things that are ultimately qualitative. That's why people find it so appealing to get their value system from religion--goodness seems to be a quality rather than a quanity, and therefore you have to get it from a source that deals with qualities. (That's also one reason why no one can sit down and perform Jeremy Bentham's "hedonic calculus.") There are other qualitative, aspects to the facts around us, and supernaturalism helps us understand them. Now qualities are not necessary but contingent. It follows that science is about the necessary, and religion is about the contingent. And suddenly it all makes sense that science has a much higher batting average. "Better at explaining reality" depends on what kind of explanation you want, but if you need or want reliablility science wins by a landslide.

[Shadowy Man]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001

Science deals with things that are ultimately quanitative. This means anything that can be measured. Anything that can be measured is subject to the laws of mathematics. The laws of mathematics are necessary truths, therefore science is ultimately about necessary truths (however much it may appear to deal with contingencies).

Religion deals with things that are ultimately qualitative. That's why people find it so appealing to get their value system from religion--goodness seems to be a quality rather than a quanity, and therefore you have to get it from a source that deals with qualities. (That's also one why no one can sit down and perform Jeremy Bentham's "hedonic calculus.") There are other qualitative, aspects to the facts around us, and supernaturalism helps us understand them. Now qualities are not necessary but contingent. It follows that science is about the necessary, and religion is about the contingent. And suddenly it all makes sense that "Better at explaining reality" depends on what you are trying to do, but if you need or want reliablility science wins by a landslide.

So, what happens when we start to realize that qualitative things are quantifiable? For example, we now have functional MRI that is able to quantify certain brain states associated with thoughts.

Might these things that were once thought to be related to the supernatural actually be further manifestations of the natural but just very difficult to quantify?

[Ojuice5001]

It's possible. We don't know that everything can be quantified, or that some things can't. You have to keep in mind that there are ways that eighteenth-century thinkers (under the influence of Descartes) tried to quantify everything, and some have been driven back. I mentioned Jeremy Bentham. A lot of people took his utilitarianism seriously, even though it depends on the idea that you can literally calculate the answer to the question, What's the best thing to do in this situation? Nowadays, most ethical philosophers think in terms of exchanging rights--a much more qualitative approach.

Or how about La Mettrie? He thought that all events can be predicted if you know everything about the matter and the physical laws involved, but scientists are less and less likely to agree with him. I see this shift as an acknowledgement of contingency in the universe.

[premjan]

in principle everything can be quantified. That's the basic assumption of mathematics. Mathematics is the introspective replacement in the modern world for religion and philosophy.

Everything can be quantified. It is just a technology problem, nothing more. Philosophy ceases to be philosophy the moment things become well-quantified and turns into science.

[Starboy]

Ojuice5001, do you favor a particular religion over another?

[Ojuice5001]

Roman paganism. There are a lot of things I've added, but Roman polytheism is more important in my ideas than any other established religion.

[Starboy]

Ojuice5001, do you dismiss any religion?

[Ojuice5001]

Most religions contain some amount of truth. All, or almost all, religions that have a large following are the creations of a real deity. A religion that wasn't backed by any god wouldn't be able to compete against the religions that are. However, nothing says that the deity's "inspired truth" is actually that, rather than something the deity wants people to believe for some other reason.

I would dismiss a religion if I thought it didn't teach a significant amount of truth, and I thought there was no real deity behind it.

[Starboy]

So where does Zeus fit into all this?

[Ojuice5001]

Zeus is the name Jupiter used when communicating with the Greeks. Or, no less correctly, Jupiter is the name Zeus used in communicating with the Romans.

[Starboy]

I'm sorry, I meant to ask, do you think the god Zeus or Jupiter is real?

[Ojuice5001]

Yes.

[Starboy]

At the risk of being redundant, why do you think Zeus is real?

[Ojuice5001]

Well, the most important reason is the fact that I have had experiences of another Roman deity--Postverta, the Roman goddess of the past. I might also point to the great success enjoyed by the Greek and Roman cultures; I think of them as being in touch with the divine to a very large degree.

[Starboy]

So I guess you are saying that you will consider as real not only gods that currently have a large following, but have ever had a large following. Is that so?

[Ojuice5001]

Yes.

[Starboy]

So where does Buddha, Confucius, the deities of South America, or the shaman spirits of all indigenous people fit into this scheme. Is there a cut off and where is it?

[Ojuice5001]

Buddha: His religion is under the control of the Hindu gods.
Confucius: I do not consider his ideas to fall under the category of religion.
The deities of South America: They exist, and I think they will play a bigger part in world affairs over the next few centuries. Maybe recognized, or maybe they will just influence events without humans knowing of their existence.
The shaman spirits of all indigenous peoples: A large number of them are real. There is probably no tribe so isolated that it doesn't have a little contact with some spiritual being.

Is there a cutoff line and where is it?

The religions of small tribes are actually worshipping the gods of a nearby large cultural group. When such a tribe gets to a certain size, demographic factors and the gods' action cause them to have more contact with the larger cultural group, and they learn the preferred mythology.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by John Page
You [b]suppose[/i]? No supposing about it. Do you agree "A person's experience is real if they are accurately reporting it"?

Agree to what? That people in the past have lied about having a revelation or that people have experienced something that they have called a revelation? Or those experiences are real? When you speak of experiences are you talking about the perception or the reality of what is perceived? I may perceive my daughter sitting on the couch, but that does not mean that my daughter is or is not actually sitting on the couch. She may be somewhere far away. I might even know this, but still perceive her to be sitting on the couch. As I have stated before subjective experience may not be reliable at detecting reality. A great deal of supernatural phenomena can be explained by the “tricks” our mind can sometimes play on us.

Originally posted by John Page
Concern agreed, I suggest one looks for proof within the mind of the proponent that the subject of the claim has no referent in external physical reality. With regard to the OP, one might then be able to verify that the experience/knowledge came from internally generated sense data. Seems like we need mind probes for this one....

No, for a great deal of what is purported to be supernatural, mind probes are not necessary. Just applying a bit of knowledge gained scientifically about the mind can explain most of it.

Originally posted by John Page
I find it deeply ironic that you are the one claiming to know the truth about reality. :)
Seriously, though, it raises the question of what "truth" is. See link to my thoughts here. (http://www.reconciliationism.org/ontologic.htm#_Toc4165874)

Because it implies an independent, objective (i.e. absolute) means of verifying what is more reliable.

Cheers, John

I do not claim to know the “truth” about reality nor do I claim that there exists an absolute means of verifying reality. Mathematics is the only human endeavor that I am aware of that could reasonably claim any kind of an absolute view, but its no big trick since they do it by definition. Also I do not confuse mathematics with science. When I use the word objective I do not mean absolute, what I mean is something that can be experienced by anyone with working senses whether they want to experience it or not. I do not confuse “truth” with reality. “Truth” as is commonly used presumes the absolute view you seem to object to. What I do claim is that if one seeks to understand reality there is no substitute for actual exploration of reality. As such, the philosophical and religious approaches to reality are bankrupt. Furthermore, to make “truth” claims about reality is to presume an “absolute” or god’s eye view of reality. That making “truth” claims about the supernatural or the natural is stupid. And those that constantly insist on making such claims are probably liars and frauds. Perhaps you mistake the strong statements that I make as a presumption of “truth”? I challenge you to find in any of my posts where I mention the word “truth” as a property of my views or in a positive way. Just to be very clear on this point, I think the concept of “truth” is for the most part useless, excepting when it is used in a mathematical way such as binary 1.

As for my presumptions of reality let me make this clear. I have no idea if anyone will every completely know reality, nor do I know if they would know it even if they did posses such knowledge. It is a ramification of exploring reality while being embedded in reality. That to presume knowledge of reality by insisting that things that are not known to exist must exist (supernatural) is a very stupid way to understand or explore reality. Again do not get me wrong, if you think that the supernatural might exist, that is fine with me. It is only when you insist that it does exists (is the “truth”), but with no evidence that can’t be well explained by natural means that you cross the line into lying and fraud.

Lastly, exploring reality is very much a “lifting yourself by your bootstraps” activity. The justification for a particular technique or method is based on how well everyone agrees it appears to work not on some pile of presumptive philosophical BS.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Buddha: His religion is under the control of the Hindu gods.
Confucius: I do not consider his ideas to fall under the category of religion.
The deities of South America: They exist, and I think they will play a bigger part in world affairs over the next few centuries. Maybe recognized, or maybe they will just influence events without humans knowing of their existence.
The shaman spirits of all indigenous peoples: A large number of them are real. There is probably no tribe so isolated that it doesn't have a little contact with some spiritual being.

Sorry, I should have asked are these gods real?

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
The religions of small tribes are actually worshipping the gods of a nearby large cultural group. When such a tribe gets to a certain size, demographic factors and the gods' action cause them to have more contact with the larger cultural group, and they learn the preferred mythology.

All fine and good, but are they real? Where is the cutoff line between a god being real and not being real?

And lastly just to be clear on what you may be trying to communicate. When you say that something is real, do you mean that it exists independent of anyone's mind or that it only can exist in someone's mind and nowhere else? Or would you say that without mind there would be no reality? In other words, man is god because man has created reality?

Starboy

[Ojuice5001]

First of all, I think of these gods as being real. I mean that they are beings made of an immaterial substance that do exist apart from human thoughts.

Second, I think that Buddha was more of a religious founder who made some changes to Hinduism. It's still a Hindu religion that has connections to the Hindu gods, something that some Buddhists still realize and some don't.

Third, I will try to explain what I think about how the gods adopted a culture. It's like when humans first domesticated, for example, sheep. Anthropologists used to think that it was all the doing of humanity, but now they think the process was more mutual. Sheep started hanging around humans more at the same time as humans were beginning to settle down with their barley farming. The humans begin to realize that there are good things you can do with a sheep; the sheep realize that humans can protect them. Each side loses fear of the other, and they begin to live in symbiosis.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Second, I think that Buddha was more of a religious founder who made some changes to Hinduism. It's still a Hindu religion that has connections to the Hindu gods, something that some Buddhists still realize and some don't.

What exactly is it about what you know about Buddha that makes you think he was not a god? Sort of like a Jesus but without the son of god bit, magic tricks or crucifixion. For that matter what makes you think that I am not a god?

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
Third, I will try to explain what I think about how the gods adopted a culture. It's like when humans first domesticated, for example, sheep. Anthropologists used to think that it was all the doing of humanity, but now they think the process was more mutual. Sheep started hanging around humans more at the same time as humans were beginning to settle down with their barley farming. The humans begin to realize that there are good things you can do with a sheep; the sheep realize that humans can protect them. Each side loses fear of the other, and they begin to live in symbiosis.

So in the sheep/human equation, which is made of an immaterial substance?

Starboy

[Starboy]

Ojuice5001, are you a Star Trek fan?

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by Starboy
[B]What exactly is it about what you know about Buddha that makes you think he was not a god? Sort of like a Jesus but without the son of god bit, magic tricks or crucifixion. For that matter what makes you think that I am not a god?

When he was alive, he denied all attempts to worship him, that's the main thing.

Actually, he could still be a god, but even if he is, he definitely aligns himself with the Hindu gods, rather than working on his own.

So in the sheep/human equation, which is made of an immaterial substance?

Starboy

The human. It's an explanation of human relations with the gods, at a certain stage of cultural development. This stage is crucial from the point of view of your line of questioning, because it is the stage of religious development that conveys the most truth. That's why I can be more sure about Romulus than about Buddha.

[Ojuice5001]

Originally posted by Starboy
Ojuice5001, are you a Star Trek fan?

I'm more into Star Wars, or fantasy stuff.

[Starboy]

Did you ever see that early Star Trek episode with the Roman Gods?

[Ojuice5001]

No, what happened?

Also, I recommend K.A. Applegate's Everworld series. It's great fun (and is about all mythology, not just Greek/Roman gods), but don't make the mistake of thinking that that Homeric-type portrayal is the only one made by the Greeks and Romans.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001
No, what happened?

I'm sorry, it wasn't the Roman gods, it was the Greek gods. The episode was:

Who Mourns for Adonais? (http://www.ericweisstein.com/fun/startrek/WhoMournsForAdonais.html)

I don't want to spoil it for you. I only bring it up because based on what you tell me you could have lifted your beliefs from that episode.

Starboy