I am not sure how you are imagining the discussion to proceed... — Jack Cummins
So the 'portal' to profound an exotic experience is going to be a doorway to richly interpreted and subjectively mediated experience. — Joshs
Reality is perception-altered — synthesis
our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia — synthesis
a portal to another place altogether — synthesis
I disagree with all that. The senses are crafted by evolution in relation to reality, and must convey an accurate picture of reality - else the organism would die out. — counterpunch
The subjective nature of perception and apperception is wildly exaggerated in order to support subjectivist philosophy; favoured over objectivism since Galileo, because an objective reality had troubling implications for the Church. The Church arrested Galileo, and tried him for heresy - while his contemporary, Descartes became pet philosopher in the court of Queen Christina of Sweden.
A Cartesian, subjectivist bias can be identified through hundreds of years of Western philosophy, to the modern day. Now, it's the left that are heavily into promoting subjectivism; in support of postmodern moral and epistemic relativism.But it's wrong. — counterpunch
The organism is evolved in relation to reality and has to be right to survive. We cross the road together, look in a shop window together, see some TV's, and laugh at the same time when someone gets hit with a custard pie. Our perceptions are the same, and our psychological understandings are fundamentally similar because they are true to an objective reality. If they weren't, we could not survive! — counterpunch
The subject of the OP doesn't seem to have anything to do with any of that. — Kenosha Kid
. It's why your first impression is so often the correct one (depending on how focused you happen to be). — synthesis
First impressions are no less biased than later impressions , in fact they are more so. With regard to understanding and getting along with others, relying on first impressions is often disastrous. — Joshs
"Getting to the truth about other people takes work and is a never-ending process. — "Joshs
Evolution doesn't explain a lot of things and the senses are very poorly understood (if at all). — synthesis
Everything is wrong, so I can definitely agree with you there. Even if you possessed the skills necessary to be right (which nobody has), you would only be right one moment (and then everything changes). — synthesis
Objective reality explaining this is analogous to guaranteeing the completion of a 70 yard hail Mary pass on the last play of a football game. — synthesis
Think about what life would be like if man really understood what was going on! — synthesis
Yeah, I think we have, but I do understand. And I am responding but it's not what you wish to hear.Evolution doesn't explain a lot of things and the senses are very poorly understood (if at all).
— synthesis
Ah. It's all coming back to me. Haven't we done this before? Me, killing myself to explain - and you steadfastly refusing to understand, and yet responding - nonetheless. You could just not respond y'know! — counterpunch
"Everything is wrong, so I can definitely agree with you there. Even if you possessed the skills necessary to be right (which nobody has), you would only be right one moment (and then everything changes).
— synthesis
Well, you are for sure! And subjectivists generally. You must understand that recognising science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality; recognising that facts have a causal and functional truth value is important to the continued survival of the human species. — "counterpunch
"Objective reality explaining this is analogous to guaranteeing the completion of a 70 yard hail Mary pass on the last play of a football game.
— synthesis
I thought you were just stupid. But turns out you're kind of a dick! Some sort of lefty, subjectivist, dumb act - that in fact is a piss take. You're mocking me. But I'm serious; humankind's relationship to science is mistaken, and that's why we're in trouble. We use science, but don't observe a scientific understanding of reality. We apply the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons - because what we believe is wrong. Well, what you believe is wrong! — "counterpunch
"Think about what life would be like if man really understood what was going on!
— synthesis
I don't claim to know what's really going on. I mean, is Australia still on fire? Or has it burst into flames again? You don't want to help develop a rationale that would allow for the application of technology on the basis of scientific merit - rather than primarily for profit, okay! Who am I to puncture your happy, clappy bubble of epistemic relativism? But you could at least have the decency not to waste my time! — "counterpunch
We use science, but don't observe a scientific understanding of reality. We apply the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons - because what we believe is wrong. — "counterpunch
Tell me more about this. — synthesis
The moment after Reality is perception-altered but before our critical thinking begins would seem to be the closest we can get to actual Reality. Although it has already become our personal reality (due to processing by our senses), it's must be considerably purer than what happens once the full monte of our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia. — synthesis
Your facts and your causality and all the rest are here today and gone tomorrow. Consider transcending such a mundane way of looking at things and see them as being fluid. — synthesis
cp, relax. Why all the hostility? — synthesis
You have no clue what I am about because you refuse to listen to what I am telling you. Instead, you have already figured it out ahead of time. And what is it that you think I believe? — synthesis
cp, you're one of the more interesting folks here, but you need to calm down. — synthesis
Think about it this way. There are two different ways to consider things, one knowledge-based that is constantly changing due to the idea that all things knowable are changing, the other being Absolute in nature, unchanging but unknowable (intellectually). — synthesis
What do we know with certainty?We now know more things with more certainty t — counterpunch
recognising that facts have a causal and functional truth value is important to the continued survival of the human species. — "
What do we know with certainty? — Joshs
The bacterial theory of disease, plate tectonics, evolution, the nitrogen cycle, heliocentrism, the electromagnetic spectrum, photosynthesis, thermodynamics... need I go on? — counterpunch
If the scientist is one who imagines himself accumulating nuggets of ultimate truth he will place his primary research emphasis on the unassailability of his fragmentary findings. If he supports something at the .05 level of confidence he is encouraged; if he pushes it to the .01 level he is gratified; if it turns out at the .001 level he is ecstatic; and if it reaches the .0001 level he wonders how one writes an application for the Nobel prize. — Joshs
Every scientific fact that you think is certain now who’ll likely be understood in a qualitatively different way 100 years from now. — Joshs
Tell me more about this.
— synthesis
Okay, but let us go back to your OP. You say:
The moment after Reality is perception-altered but before our critical thinking begins would seem to be the closest we can get to actual Reality. Although it has already become our personal reality (due to processing by our senses), it's must be considerably purer than what happens once the full monte of our intellect transforms it into some convoluted dystopia.
— synthesis
The natural implication from this is the impossibility of anything we can reasonably call truth. That's something various people want for political purposes - religious people, the politically correct/subjectivist left, the capitalist right. Truth is beset on all sides. But to my mind, science now constitutes a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we occupy - and that matters! — counterpunch
It doesn't matter how the universe began, or if matter is composed of tiny strings. That's racing off to the absolutes to deny the truth value of things we can reasonably know enough about to know - and that matters to our continued existence. — counterpunch
Your facts and your causality and all the rest are here today and gone tomorrow. Consider transcending such a mundane way of looking at things and see them as being fluid.
— synthesis
Oh, go drown yourself! What kind of fucking nonsense is that. Try that shit in traffic court - when you run a red light. Well your honour, subjectively - it was perceived as green! — counterpunch
cp, relax. Why all the hostility?
— synthesis
Because you're the one who gets to come over as reasonable - and I'm ranting and raving, but I'm right, and you are very, very wrong on something that really matters. — counterpunch
Think about it this way. There are two different ways to consider things, one knowledge-based that is constantly changing due to the idea that all things knowable are changing, the other being Absolute in nature, unchanging but unknowable (intellectually).
— synthesis
No. That's a false dichotomy. In fact; ceteris paribus, knowledge proceeds from "less and worse" toward "more and better" over time. We now know more things with more certainty than we ever have done before. We are threatened with extinction because of people like you, who would undermine truth for political advantage. It needs to stop. We need to act on the basis of what's true or our species is going to die, horribly! — counterpunch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.