Consequently, why can't you fully believe in Jaws for the duration of the movie, but feel perfectly safe due to the screen between you two? — Shamshir

Because if I'm aware of the screen, I'm aware of the fiction and thus that Jaws is not real.

Doublethink is not the ability to entertain to contradictory beliefs at the exact same time in the same experience. That's impossible. — Artemis

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Why do you think God gave us cognitive dissonance? :smile:

What if you're aware of the screen, but unaware of the fiction - similar to beholding a shark behind the aquarium glass? Let's say that your belief of the authenticity of Jaws and your awareness of the screen overlap, and produce an experience that feels authentic, with the included benefit of granting you full immunity from harm; something akin to an indistinguishable simulation, that fuels you with godly confidence.

Are you denying this as a possibility? As I in practice, do not find the shark behind the aquarium glass to be that different from the shark behind the TV screen; regardless if it is Jaws, or actual footage.
Thus, I do not find the tiger behind its cage to be any more authentic than Jaws behind the screen, in terms of belief. But obviously the two may be distinguished, at the very least through smell; yet if you dismiss everything but sight and sound, they are on footing equal enough to interpret the fictional as fully authentic.

After all, optical illusions are what filmmakers specialise in.

After all, optical illusions are what filmmakers specialise in. — Shamshir

Yes, and we should also remember that the audience are willing to immerse themselves in the fiction. They aren't cynical skeptics, they want to experience the story. We all co-operate to do so, story-tellers and story-hearers alike. And so we believe, for the duration of the story. :up:

I guess that's to be expected from someone who thinks they've got some mystical insight — Artemis

Your ad hominem approach - even if it is pretty mild, as these things go - achieves nothing*. I do not claim any special knowledge, other than that which we all have. I'm the one who's been pointing out how much we don't know, in case you hadn't noticed. :chin:

Look:

we are faced with something here that we understand only partly, if at all. — Pattern-chaser

Edited to add: * - If I have been overly abrupt, I'm sorry. My (autistic) judgement in these matters is close to random. :blush:

Why do you think God gave us cognitive dissonance — Pattern-chaser

God doesn't exist.

Your ad hominem approach - — Pattern-chaser

Ah, dish it out but can't take it. I'm not surprised.

Are you denying this as a possibility — Shamshir

Yes, because the screen embodies the fiction.

You have stopped responding constructively; we have nothing further to exchange, usefully, I don't think.

Ah, dish it out but can't take it. I'm not surprised. — Artemis

'Dishing it out' adds what, exactly, to the discussion?

I don't know if you saw this?

Edited to add: * - If I have been overly abrupt, I'm sorry. My (autistic) judgement in these matters is close to random. :blush: — Pattern-chaser

You have stopped responding constructively; we have nothing further to exchange, usefully, I don't think. — Pattern-chaser

I don't think we do either, but mostly because realism and mysticism don't mix. Talking to a mystic is like talking to a stone wall. Mysticism claims to be open-minded, etc, but then ironically dismisses all realist propositions as hopelessly naive.

So, then, now Purple Pond is well on his way to dealing with the believers.

The screen doesn't embody fiction, but it is an attribute that may be correlated with fiction. A livestream should be sufficient proof.

Your sight operates on the same basis as a livestream, the only difference between the two is the additional stimuli.

You feel confident in your ability to distinguish real from fictional, but what if your reality is just a simulation you're obliviously immersed in? Being obliviously immersed in it, would make the simulation imperceptible.
Whether you're within a simulation you're unaware of is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the audience of a film may fall in to such an obliviously immersed state for the duration of the film, parallel to which, the audience's corpus is instinctively restricted; that's the belief. After all, as aforementioned, the authentic belief of film hinges on sight and sound, not touch - so there's not much ground for the body to be superficially active; though it may incur a spike in blood pressure, which means that it reacts to the fictional on par with the real deal in some aspects.

I find it a possibility to be thoroughly examined, rather than thoroughly denigrated.

Whether you're within a simulation you're unaware of is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the audience of a film may fall in to such an obliviously immersed state for the duration of the film, parallel to which, the audience's corpus is instinctively restricted; that's the belief. — Shamshir

If you were entirely unaware of the simulation, you would run away from the Slime.

If you were entirely unaware of the simulation, you would run away from the Slime. — Artemis

the audience's corpus is instinctively restricted — Shamshir

You can be entirely unaware of the simulation, but be unable to run away. Sleep paralysis is an obvious example; lest it be authentic?

The best responses to theism are materialist (physicalist) metaphysics and cosmology. Every argument I've seen for God are based on arguments from ignorance or based on unstated metaphysical assumptions.

You can be entirely unaware of the simulation, but be unable to run away. Sleep paralysis is an obvious example; lest it be authentic — Shamshir

Sooo, you're saying all movie goers try to run away from the Slime but are paralyzed?

Sounds like a lawsuit to me :lol:

Sooo, you're saying all movie goers try to run away from the Slime but are paralyzed? — Artemis

Maybe. Maybe they want to run away, but just give up in the end. Maybe they don't want to run away, maybe they want to be eaten by the Slime. Maybe it's sloth and maybe it's suicide.

I wouldn't know, probably.

The best responses to theism are materialist (physicalist) metaphysics and cosmology. Every argument I've seen for God are based on arguments from ignorance or based on unstated metaphysical assumptions. — Relativist

Ah, good, and on topic.

(No "slime", apart from that we evolved from it.)

Maybe. Maybe they want to run away, but just give up in the end. Maybe they don't want to run away, maybe they want to be eaten by the Slime. Maybe it's sloth and maybe it's suicide. — Shamshir

Since you're getting silly, I'll just assume you're beginning to see reason :wink:

Ah, good, and on topic.

(No "slime", apart from that we evolved from it.) — PoeticUniverse

How has slime been off topic?

You have stopped responding constructively; we have nothing further to exchange, usefully, I don't think. — Pattern-chaser


I don't think we do either, but mostly because realism and mysticism don't mix. Talking to a mystic is like talking to a stone wall. Mysticism claims to be open-minded, etc, but then ironically dismisses all realist propositions as hopelessly naive. — Artemis

I was happy to leave off there, but this response deserves a reply. My core concerns are:

• What is a mystic?
• How does anything I have said lead you to the conclusion that I am presenting 'mysticism'?
• What is a realist, in the sense that you apply that description to yourself?
• Can we recognise your realism from what you have written here, and if so, how?

Can we recognise your realism from what you have written here, and if so, how? — Pattern-chaser

Yes. I've clearly stated both my atheism and my resistance to believing anything illogical, impossible, or fantastical, even for the sake of momentary immersion in a narrative (though I dont believe, as you do, that this entails some "lesser" form of pleasure taking or partaking in fiction).

What is a mystic?
How does anything I have said lead you to the conclusion that I am presenting 'mysticism'? — Pattern-chaser

1. You said God endowed us with certain abilities.
2.

I believe in God, and I'm as happy to call Him Jupiter or Jesus as any other name. All of them - yes, every one - represents one or more aspects of the one too-big-for-us-to-understand God. I think of Her as Gaia, but Cthulhu will do just as well, if that's your thing. God is God — Pattern-chaser

Of course, once you believe in an impossible and irrational idea like God, then you pave the way for all manner of silly and contradictory things and ideas.

Of course, once you believe in an impossible and irrational idea like God, then you pave the way for all manner of silly and contradictory things and ideas. — Artemis

I wonder if the denizens of the ocean's bottom think likewise of humans?

I wonder if the denizens of the ocean's bottom think likewise of humans? — Shamshir

You think plankton think humans are supernatural deities? :rofl:

Don't they? Won't they? Can't they? Shouldn't they? Wouldn't they? Couldn't they?

Proportionally you're too big to fit in to that tiny mind, much as God is too big to fit in to yours. I guess?

Don't they? Won't they? Can't they? Shouldn't they? Wouldn't they? Couldn't they?

Proportionally you're too big to fit in to that tiny mind, much as God is too big to fit in to yours. I guess? — Shamshir

And yet somehow he fits in yours? Or, if he doesn't, how the heck do you know what you're even talking about with the concept of God if your mind is too small to think about him?

That's what I call an epistemological plothole :lol:

It's quite simple, darling.
I'm guessing.

darling — Shamshir

Who? Where? You talking to someone else?

I'm guessing — Shamshir

Well, have fun with that. Your personal guessing and musing about the metaphysics of the universe are only interesting insofar as they contain something more than your imagination.

Who? Where? You talking to someone else? — Artemis

Maybe.

Well, have fun with that. Your personal guessing and musing about the metaphysics of the universe are only interesting insofar as they contain something more than your imagination. — Artemis

Thank you, I will have fun with that.

What is a mystic?
How does anything I have said lead you to the conclusion that I am presenting 'mysticism'? — Pattern-chaser


1. You said God endowed us with certain abilities. — Artemis

Ah yes, here's what I said:

Doublethink is not the ability to entertain to contradictory beliefs at the exact same time in the same experience. That's impossible. — Artemis


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Why do you think God gave us cognitive dissonance? :smile: — Pattern-chaser

That was a joke. You can see the :smile: emoji, telling you so. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. :meh:

I believe in God, and I'm as happy to call Him Jupiter or Jesus as any other name. All of them - yes, every one - represents one or more aspects of the one too-big-for-us-to-understand God. I think of Her as Gaia, but Cthulhu will do just as well, if that's your thing. God is God — Pattern-chaser


Of course, once you believe in an impossible and irrational idea like God, then you pave the way for all manner of silly and contradictory things and ideas. — Artemis

I am happy to admit that my beliefs are not based on evidence, for there is no evidence concerning the (non-)existence of God. So mine is a faith position. But this raises a point that bothers me; I'll restate the core of this: there is no evidence concerning the (non-)existence of God. And you describe yourself thus:

I've clearly stated both my atheism and my resistance to believing anything illogical, impossible, or fantastical, even for the sake of momentary immersion in a narrative. — Artemis

Being as you describe, you would actively avoid logical fallacies such as the Argument from Ignorance fallacy. And yet you describe God and belief thus:

...once you believe in an impossible and irrational idea like God, then you pave the way for all manner of silly and contradictory things and ideas. — Artemis

Although you don't say so in so many words, I interpret this as an assertion of the non-existence of God. [You can let me know if I've got this wrong.] And here is where cognitive dissonance hits me, and it's not a joke this time. Because your assertion of God's non-existence is based on an Argument from Ignorance, and yet you have described your "resistance to believing anything illogical". Perhaps you can resolve this apparent contradiction? Because, as it stands, it looks a lot like your belief (in God's non-existence) is a faith position, like mine. After all, there is no evidence at all, yes? :chin: :chin: :chin: