Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the universal truth, that second reality that truly exists, based on?
(Gotta love that truth that truly exists)
And if the universal truth that truly exists is true, then is the perceived truth, our personal truth ... is what? not true?
this goes along with what you taught me cb. our self obscures and (awe man, I forget the other word) but you put it great.
so what process can we use to lessen (not remove) confirmation bias and error?
scientific method or or blind faith?
then we need to actually apply the notion to examples. Because everybody is right in their thinking when we say "If X then [ ]' but when we put a value in for X, things change.
We call it 'Reality' or 'Everything'. Some 'waggishly' call it 'God', which is unfortunate as some try to make that a Theistic claim, which it isn't
Science is the method we use to construct models of the reality that seem to fit the data. It confirms a lot, while modifying it (evolution, particle physics, cosmology) and the claims of religion seem to lose ground all the time (we call it shrinking gaps for God'). The 'perceived truth(s) - name you own) or personal truth is more or less likely to be true, depending on which sets of results we use as a basis.
hey ... a step in the right direction.
now all you do is make the jump to "Just because I (trans) call it sortagod doesn't make the claim wrong."
this goes along with what you taught me cb. our self obscures and (awe man, I forget the other word) but you put it great.
so what process can we use to lessen (not remove) confirmation bias and error?
scientific method or or blind faith?
then we need to actually apply the notion to examples. Because everybody is right in their thinking when we say "If X then [ ]' but when we put a value in for X, things change.
I think the problem with this thread is we don't know what kind of an animal this is. Is it science, philosophy, faith, or spirituality? The confusion deepens when you consider the author is, or seems to be from his posts, not leaning in any way. Also it carries a sense of disdain for a group of “others” who are not “us”. I only know of only religion doing that. Maybe it is a new religion.
I think the problem with this thread is we don't know what kind of an animal this is. Is it science, philosophy, faith, or spirituality? The confusion deepens when you consider the author is, or seems to be from his posts, not leaning in any way. Also it carries a sense of disdain for a group of “others” who are not “us”. I only know of only religion doing that. Maybe it is a new religion.
To me its because its not "religion" doing it. It is people's personality traits. If we list the personality traits of people we would classify as a "religion-ist" then predict how that person express a belief in atheism? or home football team? or what color is the best? what would it look like? does it match what we see here at cd.
Integrity is an issue here too . There is a strong segment at this forum that is here for one reason, to stop religion (or Christianity). They actually may agree with what you are saying but they feel that publicly they must squish anything a theist can use that makes their statement of belief about god harder to sell.
To me its because its not "religion" doing it. It is people's personality traits. If we list the personality traits of people we would classify as a "religion-ist" then predict how that person express a belief in atheism? or home football team? or what color is the best? what would it look like? does it match what we see here at cd.
Integrity is an issue here too . There is a strong segment at this forum that is here for one reason, to stop religion (or Christianity). They actually may agree with what you are saying but they feel that publicly they must squish anything a theist can use that makes their statement of belief about god harder to sell.
A constant dialogue with a perceived personality called CD can obscure, ahem, reality.
A constant dialogue with a perceived personality called CD can obscure, ahem, reality.
I like to put known values in for "If x then ...." ... basically ... graph it and see if we have a pattern.
Yes, when one is here to stop religion/Christianity or spread the word of their religion or has a personally disorder (maybe due to religious abuse) the truth is intentionally or unintentional obscured.
The way I measure it is by making unoffensive claims that would deemed be "Ok, I see that" by any rational rational person. I use "something more."
"something more" is, by far, the most basic claim we have. Its is not only supported by science, it also is science. There really is no rational line of logic to say "no there isn't". It is reality. its not a deity.
so how do we read this measuring device? Its simple. Look at how the person responds.
atheist side: its woo, no there isn't, call it what it is, "ok, your right, but I don't want to deal with crazy theist so I avoid it." and a host of others.
theist side: its means god, it means my religion is right, see they have special knowledge.
even when it is as Innocent as "I don't want to deal with theist." Avoiding talking about reality obscures reality. especially when its a total rational person, rightfully avoiding a jerk theist. We don't get their insight that may be very helpful.
There is no rule that we have to be comfortable with what the universe shows us.
of course, something more doesn't help a war on religion in the united states ... but is that what this forum is for? that seems more pole it ticky that religion and spirituality.
Truth is true and always true. There is no other kind of truth. What are unreliable are our human methods of discerning the truth which produce errors. Unfortunately, the situation is inescapable so we must be satisfied with questionable truth! Consciousness is what muddies the waters. Our consciousness has an unconstrained ability to imagine. If, as I truly believe, our entire Reality is itself a product of God's consciousness (unified field) then we can NOT rule out that it is just in the imagination of God. This is also what makes the ideas about simulations, brains in a vat, super alien experiments, etc. etc. equally conceivable.That is what makes any truth we discover with our consciousness problematic.
It is entirely conceivable that our Reality is no more real than are our dreams or our imaginings. What we experience as Reality could just be a venue for eliciting in our consciousness the various emotions and cognitive responses we associate with concepts like love, kindness, gentleness, mercy, compassion, good and evil (morality). That would alleviate my angst about the "red in tooth and claw" nature of our Reality. And it would be consistent with the idea that God is only concerned with our state of mind (Spirit) NOT our physical or carnal concerns. Think about it.
I don't subscribe to the "we really can't know anything" point of view, unless we are talking in the most abstract, metaphysical, out there terms. Rarely have I taken the sort of drugs that have me talking let alone thinking along those lines, but if anyone insists, then on this we've got to agree...
Either we a) recognize we can't really know anything and/or that anything is possible and as such really need to leave it at that. Free to imagine whatever we will, or b) we consider what we can as best we can from a more practical, pragmatic and realistic standpoint.
To attempt both at the same time is something like trying to ride a unicorn and a bike at the same time. That too is only really possible in the realm of our imagination where of course we are all free to go far as we like without the limits imposed by truth or reality.
Abandoning the legal system because it sometimes goes wrong, not a god idea.
I posted once about the limits o the legal system compared to science (the producer of the evidence we are talking about here0 and that the trial is ongoing and, if i takes a decade or two to get an answer, or a better answer, that is not a reason to propose disregarding it in favour of faith - based speculation.
If you are just pointing out the limitation, we know. If you are proposing that the evidence produced by (broadly) the 'sciences' is inadequate. It is on its' tack record, the best we have.
Cultural indoctrination is probably as good an explanation as any, but of course not the only one, and it leads to the question of those who have been culturally indoctrinated (as most of us have) yet go a different path from where that indoctrination was supposed to lead. Are we back to ignoring the evidence again?
Or is it also a matter of reason and logic, for example lacking for those who can't seem to distinguish evidence from truth. Reality from imagination. Got to thinking about evidence a bit and it occurs to me that evidence is actually truth as well. As in true the evidence exists. The 22-caliber casings left at the scene of the crime is evidence, this is true. Question is what further truth or conclusion can be drawn given this evidence and the rest we have to consider?
People get a little tripped up with this sort of thing, these sorts of distinctions for some reason...
I don't subscribe to the "we really can't know anything" point of view, unless we are talking in the most abstract, metaphysical, out there terms. Rarely have I taken the sort of drugs that have me talking let alone thinking along those lines, but if anyone insists, then on this we've got to agree...
Either we a) recognize we can't really know anything and/or that anything is possible and as such really need to leave it at that. Free to imagine whatever we will, or b) we consider what we can as best we can from a more practical, pragmatic and realistic standpoint.
To attempt both at the same time is something like trying to ride a unicorn and a bike at the same time. That too is only really possible in the realm of our imagination where of course we are all free to go far as we like without the limits imposed by truth or reality.
these are ok in a general sense. now lets actually apply them to some real claims.
"how the universe works" ... the universal truth.
deity
something more is going on
universe may be alive
biosphere may be alive
there is no something more "no hierarchy of structure"
ride a unicorn
tea pot
spaghetti monster
I don't want to talk about it because theist always ruin it.
Cultural indoctrination is probably as good an explanation as any,
We call it 'Reality' or 'Everything'. Some 'waggishly' call it 'God', which is unfortunate as some try to make that a Theistic claim, which it isn't
Science is the method we use to construct models of the reality that seem to fit the data. It confirms a lot, while modifying it (evolution, particle physics, cosmology) and the claims of religion seem to lose ground all the time (we call it shrinking gaps for God'). The 'perceived truth(s) - name you own) or personal truth is more or less likely to be true, depending on which sets of results we use as a basis.
Take an Earthquake for example...
Was a time we thought God was rocking our world, and why not? We were left with our imagination (or lack of understanding) to conclude why the ground was shaking under our feet. A seemingly impossible thing to occur other than by something like God, but at least then there was validation by others who also felt the earthquake (regardless their religion).
Now we have an Earthquake and what is significantly different from the days when we were all free to imagine whatever we like?
Now, if someone says they feel an Earthquake that was caused by "something more" out there, like a God, we have independent instrumentation that we can ALL check to see what the truth of the matter might be. We also have others who can confirm they experienced the same thing. We now have a way to establish the truth, the reality about such things, by way of considering evidence we can all better accept over anyone's say so.
We also now better understand how Earthquakes happen...
Or who is next to suggest I'm just imagining all this? Or can't really be sure if an earthquake is really an earthquake?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
