I request a feature to stop people from ignoring you. — S

I request the opposite feature, the ignore a particular member feature offered in pretty much every forum software. Such a feature can help reduce the typical ego shoot outs which so plague the forum realm.

It doesn't really matter how intelligent someone potentially is if they don't apply that intelligence to things...I sort of feel most people are pretty smart about understanding the people around them, and being able to interact with them, but often don't feel the need to apply much thinking to build a philosophy about how the greater world around them works — wax

Yes, most people aren't philosophical by nature, most aren't drawn to the big picture view but are content to be distracted by details.

Intelligence comes in many different flavors, and most people are intelligent at some things while being stupid at others, this writer being no exception.

As example, I've met fellows who can take a truck engine all apart and put it all back together in six minutes. But they aren't' articulate, so to hear them talk they may sound stupid. And writing, they know nothing at all about that. The same is true is reverse for many famous intellectuals, they can grasp the secrets of the atom, but are confused by daylight savings time.

Before we discuss intelligence we should probably first identify some specific context.

It seems obvious that this can never be proven, and that it is an ill-formed question; but it also seems self-evident that the things (patterns or energy vectors or whatever) which appear to us as concrete things are not dependent upon us for their existence and do not cease to exist when we are not perceiving them. So, where does this leave us? — Janus

It leaves us doing more philosophy.

The "existence" of "things" is dependent upon boundaries between one thing and another. We identify a wave as a "thing" and thus assign it a noun because we perceive a boundary between the wave and the ocean. We perceive a beginning and end to this "thing" we call a wave, but what the wave is physically made of has no beginning or end. The water and energy the wave is made of were there before the wave and don't vanish after the wave.

The only thing that defines the wave as being a separate "thing" is a unique pattern, which in itself has no weight or mass and thus can be fairly said to not exist, according to our definition of existence.

Where do we go from here? Perhaps to the realization that we too are a wave, a pattern. Perhaps we come to understand that just as we falsely identify a wave as a "thing" which is perceived to be separate from the ocean, and thus capable of dying, we make the same mistake in our perception of ourselves.

Imho, this fundamental error of the human condition is not a result of bad philosophy, because this misperception is universal in the human experience in all cultural circumstances.

Where do we go from here? Perhaps from a focus on philosophy, ie. the content of thought, to that which all philosophies are made of, the medium of thought. From my perspective, all philosophies are just a veneer of symptoms reflecting the inherently divisive nature of that which all philosophies are made of.

So for example, 1) all ideologies subdivide within themselves, because 2) all ideologies are made of thought, and 3) the medium of thought operates by a process of conceptual division. On the surface all the various ideologies seem quite different from each other, but just underneath the surface they all operate the same way. First the ideology divides itself from other ideologies, and then the ideology divides within itself, with the subdivisions typically further dividing etc.

Look at it another way: what is the point of asking a question which cannot be answered or even coherently asked? — Janus

Well, to me the question is being both coherently asked and answered. Opinions will differ here of course.

And also what relevance could such a question have to what we have been discussing, which is "what could count as the logical or semantic difference between 'being real' and 'existing'"? — Janus

Well, semantically we can do anything we want.

In the world beyond our minds everything is real, and nothing exists, in the sense of being a separate "thing". What happens instead is that thought, the lens through which we observe reality, divides the single unified reality in to conceptual parts.

All human beings are made of thought, and thus all experience a compelling illusion of division, and thus that universally shared illusion is taken to be an obvious given by the group consensus, which gives it a great deal of authority, the main thing people listen to when coming to their perspectives.

Yes, but things only exist in forms. — Janus

Do things and forms actually exist in the real world beyond our minds?

THINGS: The concept of "thing" assumes and requires a division between one thing and another thing. Does such a division exist in the real world? The word "tree" (or any noun) assumes such a division, but is a tree really separate and divided from the air, sun, water, soil, insects etc? Or is the concept of "tree" really just an arbitrary conceptual division of a single unified system? That is, are "things" really just a human invention?

FORMS: A form or pattern has no weight or mass, and thus does not comply with our definition of existence. Well, except that human concepts in our minds would seem to have some level of physical substance, however illusive that might be.

So before we assume that "things only exist in forms" we might first attempt to prove that things and forms actually exist in the real world beyond our minds.

One of the major inventions of this century has been virtual reality. We can create worlds with in our own to interact with and to manage and design intelligently. I think this is a peak of intelligent life, creating simulations. — Josh Alfred

We've been creating simulations in our minds since the dawn of man. Thought operates by breaking reality up in to conceptual objects, and our creativity operates by rearranging the conceptual objects in our minds. These mental simulations form the essence of human brilliance.

However, the very same process of conceptual division which makes us brilliant also makes us insane, which seems a more accurate description than "stupid". As example, we all intellectually understand the threat that nuclear weapons pose, so we aren't really stupid. But we ignore the threat because we are living in a wishful thinking dream world that seems best described as a form of mental illness.

I'm not sure what you mean by "becomes you". — Janus

Yes, that's it! What exactly is "you"?

My argument is that we can draw the boundary between "me" and "not me" in any number of places, which suggests the boundaries are not real, but rather convenient human inventions.

You said that a wave is a pattern, and a wave certainly has weight and mass and can affect things. — Janus

Yes, water exists, agreed. But if we define a wave as being water, the wave doesn't die. If we define a wave as being energy, the wave is eternal.

So if we wish to define a wave as being a "thing" which can die, we are left only with the pattern, which has no existence as existence is typically defined.

so I don't agree that atomistic thinking is inherent or necessary to thought — Janus

I would respectfully counter that division is how thought works. Thought breaks a single unified reality in to conceptual parts.

We are then able to rearrange the conceptual parts in our mind, which gives us the power to imagine reality the way it might be. That is, this division process is the source of human creative genius.

The conceptual division process is also the source of our insanity, because it causes us to see ourselves as a perishable "thing" separate from all else, which gives rise to fear, and most other other human problems.

As example, language is a key expression of thought. The noun is the building block of language. And the purpose of a noun is to divide. And so from the first word spoken in human history, long before any philosophy, we were already conceptually dividing.

If human divisions could be solved by philosophy, any philosophy, wouldn't they have long ago been solved? You know, billions of thinkers over tens of thousands of years, surely someone would have come upon "the answer" by now, right?

Instead, we see the same human problems endlessly repeat themselves in every time and place, whatever the cultural circumstance. The universality of these phenomena seem a huge clue which we are largely ignoring, imho.

t's not clear to me why you would say that. I think a good definition of existence is Peirce's, which states that something exists if it can affect other things. I see patterns as fitting that bill. — Janus

A pattern no weight, no mass, which we typically define as a state of non-existence. A phenomena with no weight or mass would seem to be incapable of affecting other things. This is getting rather esoteric, and thus probably not all that useful I suppose.

As I see, the divisions we perceive (ie. things) arise from the nature of the observer, and are not a property of what is being observed. As example, we could define "me" in many different ways, which suggests such definitions are useful conceptual conventions, but also arbitrary inventions of the human mind.

Things clearly exist conceptually. But do they exist in the real world?

When does the glass of water you're drinking become you? We can reasonably draw the boundary line many different places, which may mean the boundaries are conceptual inventions.

Sorry about the delayed response, — Janus

Never a problem.

I do generally agree with what you say — Janus

If it should interest you, I'd be interested in reading how you might summarize what you hear me saying, in your own words. What is it that you are agreeing with?

but I think the kind of atomistic thinking which underlies the idea that we are separate form the world is an artifact of the Enlightenment mechanistic paradigm and ultimately finds its roots in Christianity with the idea of the individual soul, its salvation and eternal life. — Janus

That seems reasonable enough (not that I'm expert on such subjects).

I'm attempting to suggest that the content of thought (various philosophies such as you referenced) is a symptom of the nature of thought, you know, the way thought works.

In my view, the real source of "atomistic thinking" is not this or that philosophy, but rather thought itself.

Here's an example to illustrate. As far as I know, every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions. The universality of this experience should tell us that it's not the properties of this or that ideology which is generating the division, but instead something that all ideologies have in common. Which can only be that which all ideologies are made of, thought.

If it is true that the perception of division (ie. "atomistic thinking") is generated not by the content of thought but by the medium of thought itself, that would seem to put philosophy in a very different context. Why argue over competing philosophies if ANY philosophy is inevitably going to generate more division, and thus more conflict?

If it is true that the perception of division is generated not by the content of thought but by the medium of thought itself, then fundamental human problems are not a philosophical issue, but a mechanical one. Such an insight is not likely to be popular with philosophers, but that is where reason takes us, like it or not, imho.

I would agree that reason can likely take us only so far in managing our fear of death. That said, here's a try...

You're sitting on the beach watching a wave out on the horizon. You see the wave moving closer to shore, and rising up as it travels over the sandbars. Finally the wave hits the beach and is destroyed.

To you, an observer on the beach, the wave appears to have a beginning, a middle and an end. It appears to live, and then die.

This conception is dependent upon the notion that the wave is a separate unique thing, divided from all else. We feel the thing exists, and then it doesn't exist. Is this true?

All the water that appeared to make up the body of the wave is still there. It hasn't gone anywhere. The energy that pushed on the water and created the wave is still there too, for Einstein tells us that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

So what is a wave exactly? It's a pattern. A pattern created by the action of energy on matter, a denser form of energy.

What is a pattern?? A phenomena which has none of the properties we use to define existence. Patterns are real, but they don't exist.

Whether we die depends on how we define ourselves. If we define ourselves as the wave, then we die, but then never actually existed as a separate thing. If we define ourselves not as the wave, but as the ocean, we live a very long time. If we go to the fundamental bottom line like good philosophers should, and define ourselves as energy, then we are eternal.

It may be helpful to look at boredom through a mechanical lens. The mind might be thought of as an information processing device with adjustable filters. In a high stimulation environment the filters open wide to let in as much information as possible. In a low stimulation environment the filters gradually close to adapt to the situation.

Boredom happens when we move from a higher level of stimulation to a lower level. The filters are still wide open, but in the low stimulation environment there is less data to process.

So the brain starts complaining, "Where is the data I'm expecting?? Give me the data!" We call this boredom.

We usually run from boredom by inputting more data from some other stimulation source. Another solution is to simply patiently wait for the data filters to adjust to the new less stimulating data environment.

Boredom is not really the problem, but our emotional reaction to it. If we look at boredom as being just a mechanical issue which will resolve itself in time, there can be less emotional reaction.

And let's not forget the most valuable thing: knowing Philosophy makes you appear intelligent and well learned to others — ssu

Unless those others are intelligent and well learned enough to understand that philosophy at the professional level is just a business, and at the amateur level is just a parlor game.

You show up at my house for dinner with a loaded gun in your mouth. I don't even notice the gun, distracted as I am by my interest in discussing some point made by Aristotle etc. When I do notice the gun, I'm bored by it, and eager to return to my Aristotle thesis.

Am I a rational person? A real philosopher?

Wait, it gets worse. You're bored by the gun too.

Evidence? Check out this group blog by many academic philosophers, most of whom have PhDs.

https://blog.apaonline.org/

Although that blog publishes daily, and is now a number of years old, and represents a leading professional philosophy organization, last I checked there is only ONE article about nuclear weapons, the single biggest threat to modern civilization. One article. And that one article is only there because I relentlessly nagged the editor.

Philosophy is a joke. It has little to do with the application of reason to human affairs.

Philosophy might be redeemed by philosophers being clear minded and honest enough to simply call philosophy what it is, a game, like a card game for example.

There are two levels on which we might apply reason here.

One would be to apply a logical analysis to the points presented.

Another would be to stand back from the points presented and ask whether it's logical to present them.

I spent months on a group blog by academic philosophers. The presentations are more polished there, but otherwise there's little difference between their insight and reasoning and what is found here.

As example, just as there is very limited interest in our relationship with knowledge here, the same is true for academics. I'm unable to conceive of how philosophy which is disinterested in our relationship with knowledge can be labeled a serious enterprise. Fun, but not serious.

God made the world in six days — Biblical Realism

This is not so important, but it's interesting to know that time runs as different speeds depending on the observer's relation to a large mass body such as a planet. As example, scientific fact, GPS satellites have to program this time speed difference in to their software or their location data would be useless.

Point being, when we discuss time on the grandest of scales we are typically misrepresenting the reality.

Philosophy is a fun parlor game for typoholic nerds. Life is short, and fun is good, so that's a value of sorts.

Taking philosophy seriously seems a mistake, probably just another symptom of taking ourselves too seriously.

I’ve refuted those points, at least from my point of view. — TogetherTurtle

Yes, in your imagination, you've refuted those points. I do appreciate you at least engaging the topic, and doing so in a more articulate manner than most.

Another point of discussion is: what is the most effective way to write possible? — Joseph Walsh

Smile, nod and agree with whatever the reader wants to hear, while pretending to be a revolutionary revealing mysterious secrets.

How do I avoid gobbledygook writing? — Joseph Walsh

Wait, not so fast. Gobbledygook becomes logical once you realize how limited the medium really is, because to do otherwise is to transform the nexus of inescapable paradigms in to socially conscious vectors of imaginative spectral patterns consisting of the glorious random patterns of which nature has been constructed for billions of years during the period in which the nothing became the something while still retaining it's nothingness throughout.

So that we don't go endlessly round and round making the same points I'll leave you with this. Maybe it will help, probably not, your call of course.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3728/the-knowledge-explosion/p1

TT, try this...

Do you believe that children should have legal access to military grade weapons such as machine guns, rocket launchers, surface to air missiles etc? How about adult civilians?

If you answered no to either of these questions you already agree with my basic premise, human ability to manage power is limited. From there it's only one more little step to realizing that a knowledge explosion which delivers ever more power at an ever accelerating rate is sooner or later going to be a big problem.

As I’ve said, human nature seems addicted to tool making, maybe because it’s enabled us to achieve so much, like surviving a hostile environment, catching high protein food, etc., and it’s embedded in our genes. — Brett

Yes, and this is why I've been wrong in assuming that reason alone would be sufficient to make any substantial edit to this pattern. Illogical wishful thinking on my part.

I now see that pain will be a necessary ingredient. The question really is, will the level of pain be enough to wake us up but not so much as to kill us off? Will it fall within that range? Or will the pain exceed that range thus preventing any opportunity for further learning?

think it is true that our weapons will only get stronger, but at the point we're at now, does that even matter? — TogetherTurtle

It's not just weapons, but any power of sufficient scale to crash civilization. And yes, it matters. The more powers of such scale which are in play, the greater the chance that one of them will slip from our control.

The most brilliant thing about mutually assured destruction is that at the end of the day, a person or persons has to turn the key. — TogetherTurtle

The President can order a massive strike without consulting with anybody. A single person who has lost their mind a single time, game over.

You are correct in saying that both sides of the cold war had their close calls, but at the end of the day, what always stopped them from going that extra step? — TogetherTurtle

Luck. Forgive the pun, but it's a game of Russian roulette. The argument of the group consensus (which you are articulating well) is that the bullet chamber has always been empty before, so it will always be empty in the future too. But that's not how Russian roulette works, and not how reality works either.

but it is almost impossible to find someone who will launch them. — TogetherTurtle

Sorry, but you appear to know nothing about the training that launch officers get. I heard a story on NPR just a few days ago about a launch officer who merely asked "who double checks the president?" and he was drummed out of the service and is now driving a truck for living. The whole MAD system demands on each side having high confidence the other side will launch. Anybody who shows a hit of doubt is shown the door.

I don't know if bored is the right word. Apathetic may be. I think that they have just become part of the consciousness of the masses. That and the knowledge that if it happens we will be dead soon anyway breeds a sort of apathetic attitude. — TogetherTurtle

And yet the airways are filled to overflowing with endless worry about a billion smaller things.

Yes, we will be dead soon. But a hundred unborn generations are waiting in the wings. What about them?

Hi TT,

Thanks for engaging this topic. For my part, I'll make a good faith attempt to be less impatient.

I agree that our new toys are more dangerous but I don’t agree on how much more dangerous. — TogetherTurtle

What I'm asking readers to focus on is that the knowledge explosion feeds back upon itself, and thus is accelerating. So what we'll see going forward are ever greater powers coming online at an ever faster pace. If we were to plot that line on a graph against the plodding incremental (at best) development of human wisdom and maturity we see the two lines diverging at an accelerating rate.

This might be compared to steadily lowering the age at which people can purchase firearms, of ever greater power. No one can predict with certainty what will happen, but the odds that a catastrophe will occur rise over time.

There are many systems in place to defend ourselves against things such as nuclear war. — TogetherTurtle

That's true, but you might want to read up on how many times these systems have come within an inch of failure. As just one example, during the Carter Administration somebody mistakenly inserted a training tape in to the NORAD early warning system which caused the generals to call the National Security Advisor to tell him that a Russian first strike was underway. One could write a book full of other examples.

However, the system obviously does work most of the time. What you're not getting is that this is not good enough, and powers of such vast scale require a record of perfection. A single failure of a single such power a single time is sufficient to crash the system, making all the many beneficial accomplishments of the knowledge explosion largely irrelevant. That is, the very long era when we could make mistakes, learn from them, and try again.... is over. It's not the 19th century anymore.

The technology races ahead at breakneck speed while our philosophy creeps along at it's usual glacial pace, falling ever farther behind. The fact that most people including national leaders running for President are bored by nuclear weapons should prove beyond any doubt that we simply aren't ready for the scale of powers the knowledge explosion will generate.

Yes, if we destroy ourselves it will be because we weren't smart enough... — Janus

To expand on this a bit...

If we destroy ourselves (or more likely modern civilization) it will be because we experience reality as being divided between "me" (very very small) and "everything else" (very very big). This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn gives rise to most human problems.

If we perceive our situation as that of being very small and alone in a vast merciless mechanical universe, then it follows that we would focus on trying to become bigger, perhaps by grabbing all the resources we can, or maybe by attaching our identity to something larger than ourselves such as a tribe, nation or ideology etc.

It's important for philosophers to realize that the illusion of division which is driving all this dangerous activity arises directly out of the nature of thought, that which all philosophies are made of. Thus, the profound conundrum for the philosopher is that by analyzing the situation with thought, by doing philosophy, any philosophy, we are feeding the mechanism which is generating the illusion of division (which in turn generates fear, which in turn leads to all kinds of trouble).

As philosophers, we might be compared to the alcoholic who is trying to cure his disease with a case of scotch. The harder he tries to apply the cure the deeper in to his disease he falls. Seeing he's getting worse, he tries even harder, and thus falls even faster.

I think ultimately it is up to human ingenuity to create the tech that solves our problems. — TogetherTurtle

It's agreed that technology will solve many human problems.

As example, after analyzing the way most human idiots drive on the road I travel regularly, I'm coming around to driverless cars as a preferable risk. Driveless cars wouldn't ignore the speed limit. Driveless cars wouldn't tailgate me and attempt NASCAR drafting. Driveless cars wouldn't recklessly pass me on a curve because I'm rudely only going the maximum speed permitted by law, and so on.

There are many such examples of the benefits of technology. And so we will seek to develop ever more powerful technologies so as to harvest ever more and ever bigger benefits.

As the scale of such technologies grows we begin to enter a new era that is radically different from the past that we are so familiar with. In the past we could make mistakes, fix the problem, clean up the mess, and try again. As the scale of technology grows this room for error is steadily erased. As example, it only takes one bad day one time with nuclear weapons and it's game over, at least for modern civilization as we know it for the foreseeable future. The opportunity to fix the mistake, clean up the mess, and try again is lost for a very long time.

So as we harvest the many benefits of ever more powerful technology we should keep in mind that as we do so we are traveling ever deeper in to a new era which won't be as forgiving as the past. With powers of great scale one mistake one time with one such power can bring the whole process to a close.

IMO there is a large gap between popular atheism and popular theism, the gap is much smaller between thoughtful atheism and theism. — Rank Amateur

It seems to me that a truly thoughtful investigation would largely discard the simplistic, tired and outdated either/or atheist vs. theist paradigm in favor of a more serious and practical approach. We philosopher types at least invest far too much time in debating atheist vs. theist when we could instead be focusing on developing our relationship with reality.

Every human being is born in to a marriage with nature, with reality, with this place where we find ourselves. Reason should be leading us to the question, how do we fall more deeply in love with our marriage partner? How does a person find their way to a place where, for example, they experience tears of joy at the beauty of a sunrise? It seems less important what approach one takes than whether one actually gets where one is trying to go by whatever approach one chooses.

True reason would take us beyond philosophy in to the emotional realm, because that's where we really live.

But can technology also solve this problem? Maybe once we agree on what healthy is. We have politicians on both sides calling their opposition mentally deranged. I don’t trust them with the power to “cure”. — TogetherTurtle

Yes, that's it. Ideally we would be able to use science to re-engineer the insanity out of human beings. But, um, it would be we the insane who would be doing the engineering.

But more to the point, philosophy is neither science, nor religion. It has its religious aspects - or I think it does, although that doesn't sit well with secular culture - but it also takes pains to understand in a way that religious believers don't want to bother with. — Wayfarer

To add another layer to your idea, what is the relationship between philosophy and reason?

Do the human problems which religions have long attempted to address and which make the power of science dangerous in the modern world arise from bad ideas? Or from the nature of thought itself?

If one answers bad ideas, then philosophy seems a solution grounded in reason, because philosophy is a systematic discipline dedicated to removing bad ideas.

If one answers thought itself, then it seems questionable whether philosophy is a reason based response, given that philosophy is made entirely of that which, in this view, is said to be the source of the problems.

It seems to me that philosophy can be used to uncover that fundamental human problems arise from the nature of what we're made of psychologically, thought. Philosophy can be used to show that the notion that the source of our problems is bad ideas is itself a bad idea.

And then, if one wishes to move beyond understanding the situation to doing something about it, one has to move beyond philosophy.

Consider the cave man philosopher who has diligently explored the landscape he inhabits on foot. And then his explorations bring him to something new, the ocean. If the cave man wishes to explore this different environment, he has to surrender his passion for walking.

If the cave man is a person of reason who wishes to explore the ocean he will willingly give up the act of walking to learn how to navigate the new environment of the ocean by learning how to swim. Exploration is the priority for this cave man, not walking, which he sees as being merely a means to an end.

If the cave man is not a person of reason, but merely a philosopher, then he will turn his back on the ocean and go looking for new landscapes that can be explored by walking. For this cave man, walking is the priority.

The argument that 'believing in God is absurd because there's no empirical evidence' betrays a total misunderstanding of the nature of religious faith and experience. Perhaps it is only to be expected in the context of a scientific-secular culture which has little grounding in the religious or spiritual. — Wayfarer

Yes, philosophy forums provide a great example of this. Almost all religion threads seem to focus on ideological beliefs, as if that was all there is to religion. The constant comparisons between science and religion reveal a profound lack of understanding of the nature of religion. I would summarize the situation this way.

SCIENCE: facts about reality
RELIGION: our relationship with reality

Religion proposes facts about reality not to compete with science, but to assist in managing our emotional relationship with reality.

Religions seem to get what philosophers are rarely able to grasp. The reality of human beings is that we are like an M&M candy, with a thin hard shell of reason on the outside obscuring a much larger soft and squishy center of emotion. Philosophers typically don't get this because while being superficially clever, we are typically emotionally inept. Clever, but shallow. Yea, me included, as I bow to no one in nerdly nerdmanism. :smile:

Just ask almost any woman. They will read this forum and see immediately that it's primarily about male ego emotions, whereas we routinely delude ourselves in to thinking it's about razor sharp logic, blah, blah, blah...

The great irony is that, generally speaking, religions have a more realistic understanding of the human condition than do the "no-nonsense realists". That's why religions go on and on and on for thousands of years, they are aligned with the real world of human beings.

I think the very idea of us going to other planets, mining asteroids and so on, is a laughable scientistic masturbatory fantasy. — Janus

Dang! I wish I'd said that first. :smile: Made me smile, thanks.

In an interview Norman Mailer suggested that technology is the opposite of science, and that either the Devil invited technology here, or God, in his battle against the Devil, entered into a dread compact with technology. — Brett

Although I have no opinion on God and the Devil I've always found it fascinating how prophetic the first story in Bible has been, Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden etc. Although the story has a children's fairy tale quality to it which makes it unpalatable to many moderns, it pretty accurately sums up the human condition. They ate the apple of knowledge, and were ejected from the Garden of Eden.

My interpretation is that the apple of knowledge represents the growing emergence and prominence of thought in the human animal, and the Garden of Eden represents the intimate primal relationship animals and primitive humans had with nature.

In our time this focus on the symbolic realm is being greatly accelerated as we are bombarded from all directions by compelling media which invites us further and further in to abstraction, and farther and farther away from the real world "Garden of Eden". As we become more and more divided from the natural world psychologically we become increasingly cut off from the psychic nourishment provided by the real world, which widens a hole in our souls, which we typically try to fill with.... more technology.

Religions have been making this same mistake for thousands of years. Because they typically don't understand that it is thought itself which is creating the problem they are trying to solve, they often try to use thought (dogmas and doctrines etc) as the solution, which only digs the division hole deeper.

My guess is that we are fated to ride the technology train where ever it is going, like it or not, until the machine finally crashes in to some wall. We'll learn a little bit from that, and then try again, probably making many of the same mistakes again. We may repeat this process a hundred times over thousands of years until we finally get our relationship with knowledge and technology sorted out.

From my perspective, your argument is this: You can't prove that there is no god and humans can't understand the overarching themes that define the universe.

My argument was that you don't have proof for that either, and on the contrary, we manipulate the laws of nature to our own ends all the time. — TogetherTurtle

As I suspected, you have no idea at all what my thesis is, and are objecting just to object. Very normal, not very interesting.

With all due respect I don't worship it. I know people who worship it. A worshiper will be devout and will not change. If you made a good point I would agree with you. I can't back that up of course but I suppose you could just take my word for it. Just know that I think that changing your mind isn't a weakness but a strength, and I'm not afraid to agree with you, but I won't unless you make a convincing argument. — TogetherTurtle

Let's try this. Perhaps you could summarize what you think my argument is. If you wish. Or we could forget it and move on. Agree to that too.

That's nondualism. It's interesting but not relevant to the point as it belongs to a different domain of discourse. — Wayfarer

Ok, I hear you, no complaints. But then, dividing everything up in to different domains of discourse is another example of what I'm pointing to. Just sayin... :-)

Aren't you the one getting a little angry? — TogetherTurtle

Yes, I apologize. I have no personal beef with you, I really don't. But please understand, I've been discussing this for over a decade on many different sites, and I've heard everything you're saying, and the snarky attitude behind it, at least 56 million times.

Imagine getting in to a debate with a Jehovah's Witness. Stupid, right? They will debate you in earnest, but really they have no interest in reason. Same thing talking with science worshipers. To the degree I'm angry it's mostly with myself for engaging in an activity that I know is a total waste of time. So that's on me, and it my little problem to sort out.

Why do I need a thread on something to have interest? — TogetherTurtle

Just another poser....

Have you ever considered that if you can't prove a point to anyone, you may be wrong? — TogetherTurtle

I did spend years considering that, until I discovered that no one, no matter how well educated, has been able to defeat the general premise articulated in my thesis. What they typically do instead is what you're doing, throw up a bunch of ego fueled smoke and then get bored, and wander off to some other subject where they can throw up more ego fueled smoke.

While this pattern has been frustrating to me, and to some degree still is, I have learned something important from years of engaging in this process.

Our outdated relationship with knowledge is not going to be edited with reason. What I've been wrong about was the assumption that was possible.

My mindset in this regard suffers from the same ignorant arrogance that leads the group consensus to assume that it can manage any power science uncovers, no matter how large.

So, it is entirely possible to debunk my posts on this subject, but sadly for you, you're not up to the job, so I have to do it for you. But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 20-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse.

You forgot about nuclear power. You forgot about technology letting us colonize the stars, making nuclear weapons ending civilization a thing of the past (we’re entering the beginning phases of that by the way). You forgot about mutually assured destruction. You forgot about the innumerable failsafes nuclear powers have in place to stop their countdowns. You forgot about nuclear bunkers filled with technology to rebuild the future. You forgot about the versitality of mankind, essentially. You forgot a lot. — TogetherTurtle

Not only that, I forgot why I bother to discuss this on philosophy forums at all.

Are you bored of that? I’m not. — TogetherTurtle

Where are your threads on the subject? Point us to them please.

That doesn’t take into account the possibility of revealed truth: that God has chosen to reveal Himself to mankind. So for the religiously orthodox, it’s not a guessing game or ungrounded speculation, but reflection on the meaning of historical events that were animated by the Holy Spirit. — Wayfarer

Well, that's one of the popular theories of course.

My own speculative theory is that ideas like "God" and "mankind" assume a division which is only conceptual, not real. The perceived division is a property of the observer, not a property of the reality that is being observed.

If I'm wearing sunglasses all of reality appears to be tinted. If everybody is wearing sunglasses all their lives, then the apparent tint color of reality is taken as an obvious given by the group consensus, and becomes an assumption which is rarely if ever examined.

For centuries those wearing sunglasses engage in never ending debates regarding whether reality is tinted more blue than green, or more green than blue. The debate becomes a career for some, while many people build their personal identity around their position in that debate, and an ever higher pile of compelling human agendas builds in favor of keeping the debate going. And it's all about nothing, because the debaters neglected to examine and challenge the assumption the debate was built upon.