The best way to conceive of fact/reality is as a union of principle and potential. If we try to confine it with a form, then it defines its own limitation and ceases to be absolute.

I think the computer is based on the binary code. Both software and hardware are designed to interact through the binary code according to the relationship between physical configurations and the preset algorithms.

This is why I tell people to find me this axiom that is entirely indisputable without resorting to arguments from practicality — khaled

Logic can determine validity because of its relation to fact. Logic is the expression of the relation between the fundamental and the auxiliary; between the intrinsic and the extrinsic; between the absolute and the relative; between fact and perspective.

One of our main deficiencies is in how we define reality or how we determine what is fact. For example, many would argue that an object in their house is fact/real maybe because it has 'objective' existence or because the proof of its existence can be evident to others. However, according to me, it fails to be a fact/reality because it can cease to be that object. My definition of fact/reality is that which is; that whose value is absolute; the indisputable, the undeniable, and in that sense, it describes that which remains even when everything else ceases. For example, we may break down matter into an ever diminishing quantity and yet something is always bound to remain. That, which is fundamental to everything; that, which is absolute in its manifestation, is fact/reality. And even though it seems exceedingly abstract, we can conceive of what we refer as our world and our life as being based upon this fact/reality, which permeates and configures everything we are. Nature/Natural law(s) - or what we call the laws of existence - are the activities expressed by fact/reality and logic is the expression of that relationship between fact/reality and nature.
Mathematics, science, philosophy, metaphysics, etc., are just a few interpretations of the logic which we understand.

Get it? — Blue Lux

No, I don't. Does it imply that the initial status was chaotic or that chaos was introduced causing it to seek equilibrium?

That would be a case of the mind creating order to its mental imagery. — Purple Pond

What other order could there be?

I'm trying to think of examples of what would convince me that... the physical world is not all there is. — Purple Pond

After the discovery of other planets in our solar system, we (including scientists) imagined them to be exactly like our earth in their constitution. Many years later, we have terms like 'gas' planets to describe some of them. Even though they are physical, they are far less dense than our earth. Could you imagine what kind of life-forms they would have, if they did? Consider the ratio of our earth's density to human density, 5.5 g/cm3 (earth) to 0.985 g/cm3 (humans). Imagine the implications if that translated directly to those gas planets or if the life-forms could have a much less relative density. It might mean there could be other civilisations out there progressing parallel to ours and beyond our perception.

What if worlds and life-forms were not limited to solids, liquids and gases? Suppose configurations of much higher vibrational energies into magnetic/gravitational (or any other kind of energy) fields like planets, suns, etc.

We have a very limited spectrum of interaction, therefore, our observations, investigations, experiences, etc are very limited. We have historical evidence that, there has always been more to discover, it's just a matter of time. :sparkle: The truth is out there. :sparkle:

First, I think we've over-simplified the processes of the mind. I see the mental processes as organizing/directing mechanisms which derive order, not necessarily from chaos (depends on definition of chaos) but from disoriented fragments. The orientation (directing/organizing) is what gives context and, consequently, significance (perhaps even meaning) to objects/subjects/circumstances. In this way, I agree with @frank.

Perception doesn't create order. — Purple Pond

I think perceiving, in itself, is an act of ordering. That is, what would sensation be if not organised into percepts? The relationship which perception draws in connection with memory, observation, reason, imagination, etc is for the sake of giving context (significance/meaning) to an otherwise amorphous and incoherent mess.

If you perceive order, then order was already there. — Purple Pond

Possibly. But, it is also possible to create order out of chaos, that is, organise the disorganised.

It is also possible to imagine order when there is only chaos. — Purple Pond

That would be the mind creating order because imagination is part of conception.

A linguistics professor says during a lecture that, "In English, a double negative forms a positive. But in some languages, such as Russian, a double negative is still a negative. However, in no language in the world can a double positive form a negative." But then a voice from the back of the room piped up, "Yeah, right."

A mathematician and an engineer agree to take part in an experiment. They are both placed in one end of a room and at the other end is a naked woman on a bed. They are allowed to move towards the woman but only half the distance every 30 seconds.
The mathematician exclaims, "this is pointless!" and storms out of the room. The engineer agrees to proceed with the experiment anyway. Seeing this, while on his way out, the mathematician calls out to the engineer, "can't you see they're messing with you? You'll never actually reach her!"
To that, the engineer responds, "so what? Pretty soon I'll be close enough for all practical purposes."

Religion and spirituality represent very meaningful experiences for people, and in every church there is undoubtedly something different but a part of a whole. This whole is the meaning there, as a social unit, in reaction to the civilized attitudes, dilemmas and norms they have to assimilate. Not always is religion or spirituality harmful. — Blue Lux

True enough. And thanks to the improving social harmony across the globe, religious terrorism is on the decline. Hopefully, eventually and soon, there will be an instinctive inclination towards sharing of spiritual practices and, consequently, a coalition of religions. Maybe the 'whole' will become the new focus of religions instead of the many seemingly separate parts.

A. Crowley — Blue Lux

Don't like his teachings. He didn't apply a strict ethical orientation to his teachings which gave them the appeal of black magic.

should sperm be the property of its host? — Ranger

No, not discarded sperm, but the genetic material which it (and every other part our body) contains.

There's more to biological elements than their material nature. I think if the law understood choice and free will better, they would not allow anyone's genetic material to be appropriated without the due consent. For example, say you have an aged atm card and it's cut into half and thrown in the trash (coz you're getting a new one). Then some hacker picks it up, puts it back together and manages to extract your bank information from it and uses it for a good payday. Is it a crime? Coz my thought is that the information on the discarded atm is still worthwhile and relevant and therefore wasn't discarded with the atm. So maybe the same analogy could apply to all our biological material? Ejaculation is primarily a consequence of sexual stimulation. Having a child is a different choice altogether, even though sometimes the two activities have a sought of direct or immediate relation.

There is a lot of material that we discard from the body, the one thing we don't is ownership of our genetic material.

And suppose human cloning was/is possible, would it be okay for someone to just collect your dna and reproduce another human without your consent?

We can't imagine a square circle. — TheMadFool

That's because, by definition, two things are not one. I can, however, imagine a squared circle, or a circled square. I can also create an image which is half circle and half square and choose to call it a square circle or circle square. It depends on the parameters you choose to define your imaginations with.

Yet we have Schrodinger's cat, both dead and alive. — TheMadFool

Conceptually, yes. Practically, not yet experienced. Hence, the question whether imagination is logical or illogical.

I agree. Though I think if any of the current religions is to survive the ongoing onslaught, it must address the evils perpetrated by its misguided adherents in a very direct way. Most of the religions must also be universalised with every tribal aspect being eliminated and every metaphysics must be revealed to be conceptual. Otherwise, it would just be inviting more chaos.

What happens when two debaters 'steelman' each other?

Why presume that free will should mean absolute will? Why couldn't it refer to a will that is free to overcome whatever limitations there are provided it chooses to and knows how. This would allow it to be free but still limited in some ways.

we only need to judge the instance according to whatever standards of reason those involved in the judging are in fact using. — DingoJones

This would imply that with a variety of judges there is the possibility of a variety of judgements. Also, it means judgement is determined by the code of conduct adhered to by the judges.

So maybe the basis of imagination doesn't crisply fall into either category. — apokrisis

Which is what I'm inclined to deduce.

Now I find myself thinking that perhaps logic is limited to perception or a direct relation with facts. This then makes me revise my definition of perspective since it seems to account for concepts as well. Then the characteristics of the concepts we create or the mode of association we use in creating concepts should reveal, to some degree, the perspective which we bear. Right?

Maybe those who choose to adhere to the application of certain concepts in their lives are no more crazy than any others. Maybe, the difference is in the degree of variation between their concepts and percepts. But, since their is no limitation to our imaginative endeavours then we cannot fault anyone for going too far or not far enough. As to our interactions, it seems that as long as we adhere to the accepted code of conduct, then every application of concepts which fits within those boundaries is fair game. Right?

Like I said, the disagreement is based on our different definitions of choice and belief.

How can you accidentally make a choice? — S

Someone walks into their spouse having sex with another person and in a blind rage commits a crime of passion. It would still be choice but the degree of deliberateness would be questionable. I think this explains the point of a predominantly reactive choice. Also, our reactions are within our purview of control.

As to the relationship between choice and belief, what's your definition of belief?

I suppose im saying that the measure of reasonableness is something that exists separately from the processes we apply it to. — DingoJones

Yeah, I thought so too. Which led me to thinking, what would be the basis which determines the reasonableness of the application?

We have developed to a great extent the means to analyse and criticise our perception of reality. However, because there is more to the mind than just perception, I'm wondering how significant a role conception (the generation/creation of concepts) plays in developing our perspective and consequently, how that perspective influences our experiences. And is it reasonable to apply concepts in the development of experiences?

Other examples also include: Magic(k), Astrology, Aura, Aether, stuff from historical mythologies e.g. Atlantis, Camelot, El Dorado, Garden of Eden, Lemuria, Nibiru, Zion, Olympus, Dragons, Book of Thoth, Ambrosia, Druids, etc.

Sorry, for the late changes. I'm done editing the OP.

you don't have a choice of whether to believe or disbelieve in the existence of any deity or deities. You only have a choice to take steps which might or might not lead to you believing or disbelieving. The one and the other are not the same and so should not be conflated. — S

I think you've just created a paradox. Isn't taking steps towards believing/disbelieving the act of choosing to believe/disbelieve? Anyway, even accepting a sequence of unfolding events is itself a choice. Back to the food analogy: there are many (ill-advised) ways to stop digestion, the fact that you allow it implies a choice, though implicit. And even at an immediate point in a situation, if there's initiation of impulse, then there's choice.

However, I think I get your position in the argument. You mean deliberate choice. What I'm saying is that there are choices which are not as deliberate as others, or better yet, are predominantly reactive.

Hi,
What worked best for me was knowing what it might mean to be in the circumstance I'm at. It helped me determine which kind of discipline I aimed to instil into myself. For example, when I was 12 yrs old I was told how adolescents behave, what they think is most significant, how they often think with regards to authority, how they bend to peer and social pressure, etc. The wierdest thing ended up happening, even though I went through all the stuff adolescents and teenagers do, because at the back of my mind I had an outline of it all and how best to maintain perspective, I managed to avoid getting sucked in too deep into things. It's like being told beforehand that drinking (alcohol) everyday or past social occasions is a sign of alcoholism. So, when you start developing the desire to drink everyday or even past a certain distinct limit, you become aware in your mind that there is a problem. I still do that nowadays, I try to see how my actions influence the different mind-sets I interact with and it paints a picture of what relationships we could have and what signs to watch out for.

The same can be done with morals. Teach them what it means to have certain qualities at their age e.g., honesty (for me it related to superman who never told lies, but then there's the whole hidden identity thing, which is good because it gives a sort of perspective), courage, helpfulness, duty, etc. If possible, teach them to formulate narratives where they decide what qualities the characters have and the reasons for having them. This way they will be able to see themselves in a certain spectrum and perhaps even understand how shades of good and evil interact.

As to love, you can teach the difference between attraction, lust (desire) and love. Perhaps you could teach them how attraction if fleeting, lust is born of selfish ill-regulated impulses and that love is unbiased. Also, it cannot be love if it is not expressed with intelligence and integrity. (There is no careless love) - I don't have any exercise in mind for this, but I'm sure you can manage.

Oh, and whatever they do, teach them it's about having fun. I would totally repeat primary school - best years of my life. Teach them to discover things about life in fun ways. The brain will produce the right hormones when learning is mixed with fun activities and they will last longer in the memory and create the right type of tendencies and dependencies.

Last but not least, the most important lesson in life is that: no matter what, no matter when, we can and should always put the effort to become better. Self-improvement is the best superhero power to have. (I think the lesson is adaptability, or something). Anyway, all the best and have fun doin' it.

As to choice, I think our disagreement is based largely on our definition of choice.

I define choice as idiosyncratic cause or idiosyncratic initiation of an impulse. It is the same definition I give to will. So, for me, to will is to choose. It also encompasses all activities carried out by a human internally and externally. For example, digestion may begin automatically when the presence of food is detected but because we determine when food is consumed, we therefore initiate the mechanism, thus, choice. The same goes for reason, we initiate the process, the mind/brain being the tool we use to carry it out.

Also, belief being a choice is again dependent on the definition we give to it. I define belief as a consequence of knowledge. For me, acquisition of knowledge is a choice. So, belief is the reference point we create to determine the measure of new experiences and a mirror through which we reflect past experiences in order to determine what value to extract from them.

Again, right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool. Don't mistake what religion was with what modern day philosophy is. Religion was not about mere teachings, it involved social and political dimensions as well. Anyway, this discussion is past due. We can't keep insisting on personal perspective in the hopes it will somehow overcome those of others without being based on actual proof.
I prefer to add other people's perspective to mine so as to have a more comprehensive view of the situation.
I understand why religious practice is flawed, I understand which teachings are often misunderstood due to wrong perspective and a misconception of its aims, I understand why there is an increasing number of people against religion, however, I also understand what value religion has had in our society, I understand why there's still many who choose to hold on to religion, I understand that ignorance is the primary cause of the faults and corruption in religious practice not religious teachings in themselves, etc.
If it were up to me, religions would need to be revised into purely ethical teachings, which is what Jesus did to the religious doctrines by the previous prophets, Krishna also gave a revised version of Hinduism in The Bhagavad Gita, and Buddha revised most of the religious oriental doctrines into Buddhism, an ethics/morality based doctrine.
There have been exceptional people who not only believe in a religious God(s), but who understand the significance of choice and responsibility and they act accordingly. There have been great scientists and philosophers, accomplished in reasoning ability, who choose to adhere to a religion in full recognition of its limitations and the limitations of science and philosophy as well.

It's not that the information isn't there, it's just how we choose to interact with it.

We can choose to bombard others with our idea of reason, but we'll end up receiving the same because like begets like. Reason is not just pure mental logic, it should also reflect in the tactical configuration of our actions towards the aims we hope to achieve. It should also reflect our identity not just as thinking humans but also in our capacities for empathy, sympathy, etc.

Those who seek fault find fault. If we judge the law according to miscreant law breakers or religion by the ignorant adherents, all we'll get will be flaws. Let's judge Christianity according to Jesus Christ, Islam according to Prophet Muhammad, Buddhism -> Gautama Buddha, Hinduism -> Lord Krishna, etc.

And how do Gods fare with practical experience as a limiting factor? — ChatteringMonkey

Not Gods, but the human conception of Gods.

The real philosopher is the archenemy of priests and theologians. — ChatteringMonkey

No. The real philosopher studies facts in their right relation. There have been good religious philosophers in the past and the basic tenets of the major religions are good philosophical teachings. Right perspective is a philosopher's greatest tool.

my knowledge that any deities the existence of which would entail a contradiction do not exist cannot rightly be called speculation about the unknown — S

The premise and conclusion from it are based on your own perspective. It is your interpretation which concludes for you that the existence of those deities would entail a contradiction. From my experience, nobody worships a dead god, which means those who believe in them have a contradicting argument.

You can't just assert that it's a choice, because that's begging the question. I don't even think that what we're talking about - obtaining belief - is something which can be chosen, so, for starters, you would need to explain why you think otherwise before moving on to more detailed talk of scientific hypotheses, probability, logic, religion, and so on. — S

The claims and statements that you express, which are based on your reason infer a choice. Reason does not just conduct itself arbitrarily. The fact that you are adhering to a particular set of beliefs in accordance with certain points of reference, especially now, when you have the capacity to understand and determine whatever actions to engage in, means you have made a choice.

Sorry, I'm not following. Can you break that down and explain it? — S

You cannot determine by logic how scientific hypothesis are much greater in probability than religious assertions when both reference points are unknown. That is, we don't know what the origin of everything is and our perspective of reality is insufficient. Also, both religion and science can be logical concerning this discussion.

What do you mean by that? How are you using the term "metaphysical"? — S

Metaphysical part of religion is the part not determined by practical experience and cannot be explicitly defined logically (primarily involving God).

if you happen to be the kind of person who doesn't want their beliefs exposed to scrutiny — S

I'm okay with scrutiny if it means a logical unbiased analysis not an attempt to impose personal bias on others.

But then any regular everyday event can be explained in a million different ways if complexity is not a limiting factor and all metaphysical unverifiable possibilities are up for consideration. Is that reasonable? — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, it is reasonable. The limiting factor would be practical experience. While every circumstance is open to any number of possible considerations, there is a convergence to our shared perception and utility. There are certain specific contexts which prevent situations from being amorphous.

Yes, i'm not saying we should allways use reason or that reason is more important then the rest of our abilities, but the question was, "is it reasonable"... so I answered with that in mind.

And sure religion has been effective in achieving certain aims, the more salient question maybe is what aims, and are these also my or your aims? — ChatteringMonkey

I agree. Personally, I'm not a fan of religion. I wish people used reason to justify their beliefs or, at the least, to determine their conduct within those beliefs. But, I must also concede that things won't necessarily happen the way I want them to, especially if they involve other people. I may not care for religion but I must regard those who do with the due consideration.

I don't agree that it's a choice. I can't choose to believe anything that I'm not convinced of. I can't choose to believe anything at all, it seems. That seems like a category error. Beliefs aren't the kind of things that can be chosen. I mean, I could pretend, but obviously that's not the same. — S

Whatever significance you assign to any speculation about the unknown is based on choice not fact. To claim a scientific hypothesis has greater probability than a religious one is based on the choice you have made (perhaps sub/unconsciously due to a pre-set inclination or tendency) and not on reason based on logic. Logic dictates you cannot state the probability of an unfathomable occurrence (existence) against an unknown cause. If you have any belief against the metaphysics of religion, then it's just as metaphysical as religious belief.

Whether or not either of those beliefs is reasonable or unreasonable surely depends on the reasoning or lack thereof. — S

Reason cannot determine logic, it only applies it. Until reason provides a means to uncover the proof of the origin and intrinsic mode of operation of the whole of existence, then we cannot claim to have an absolute reference point for any perspective. However, a relative reference point is what we use to determine whether or not those who claim belief in deity/deities or belong to any religion are being reasonable/unreasonable. And, often enough, their reasonable/unreasonable-ness is an individual factor born of perspective and the interpretation of the information we/they possess. Just as there are a lot of 'crazy' religious people, there are very 'decent' ones, too. The same applies to everyone, deistic or not.

Accept in what way?? — S

Accept as in allow to be. Give your own beliefs the 'space' and 'nutrition' to grow and develop appropriately. And give that same opportunity to others. (By and by we are realising how much deliberate influence we have on our beliefs and convictions. Life is about progress, give it a chance. Mistakes teach us to do better, success motivates us to do more.)

I do think that it's somewhat unreasonable to believe in one or more of the specific gods put forward by the major existing religions... and especially in the whole moral system that is typically based that deity. In light of current scientific insight on the vastness of the universe, it would seem kind of strange that a deity who is the creator of all that is, would occupy itself with regulating the minutia of the behaviour of a species on one the many many planets. — ChatteringMonkey

Can a law e.g., of cause and effect, apply to the whole of the universe without applying to each relative circumstance? Why not a deity/deities, if such exist?

My point is, not knowing cannot be used to validate any possibility and, no matter how scientific the approach, it still remains unknown.

if we have a choice in explanations, we should choose the more simple explanation. — ChatteringMonkey

Perspective is relative, so is our understanding of simplicity. Hence, the many varied choices we make. It all depends on our abilities/capacities.

Finally there also is something fundamentally un-reasonable about the methodology of religion and the morals it proscribes. In essence it's based on revelation and faith with the 'word of God' being the final word, and not on experience and reason. — ChatteringMonkey

Faith, Belief, Intuition, etc., are applicable to human experience because they are based on more than reason, perhaps will. We face the unknown, not because we understand it, but because we are determined to rise to the challenge. Religion is specifically directed towards instigating certain reactions in humans and among aspects like emotion, thought, intuition, will, etc., reason is not the greater cause, as proven by past human experience. Infact, the success of religion to achieve its aims may be proof of its reasonable-ness, though this is just personal opinion regardless of the probability we may assign to its practical utility.

The need of the present times may suggest administering reason in our actions and interactions. This, however, must be gradual and fundamentally dependent on individual efforts to overcome the inertia of millenia of opposition. We (human identity) haven't always been homo sapiens ('wise' or 'sensible' man), as evolution and past history reveal to us and there seems to be much progress to be made before we can claim the full capacity implied by this identity of homo sapiens.

This is a difficult one, and depends on what you mean by 'accept'. And it also depends on what you mean by 'harm'. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes. But that is how all our interactions are. Just as our laws of conduct keep adapting to accommodate human needs better, so do our principles, beliefs, ethics, morals, dogmas, etc. It is all relative, even when it is objective.

Thanks. It's what I'm trying to express and impress to people's minds - that we can learn to be aware of our frustrations and choose to act against them.

Ok. All the best.

I don't consume carcasses but I take milk and the occasional egg (one or two once a month - I'm mildly allergic and that's my limit). Anyway, don't know what that makes me.

I've heard different versions of vegetarians and vegans and ... etc. I know people who don't kill for food (ahimsa - practice of non-violence), they primarily feed on fruits, grains and leafy vegetables ( the veggies are mainly from their gardens). Anyway, they still kill the plants (in a way) because they have to maintain an appropriate ecosystem with the soil and nutrients, so they have to change plants every once in a while. They say it's not violence if it's in harmony with nature. Who knows? But, they have a point. We (humanity in general) have a tendency to go overboard.

Christianity vs vegan-ism - WTH??!!!

The Forum is Biased for Atheism and Against Religion — Ram

"Somebody picks a fight with another, and a boxing match ensues. The instigator throws several punches to the opponent, the head clearly in sight. And, as you would have it, the opponent retaliates with their own suit of punches. The instigator is baffled momentarily and backs themselves to the corner.
But, they are not Muhammad Ali, and they do not stand a chance of surviving the onslaught. And because they are not Muhammad Ali, they get decimated in the corner."

Above is what has often happened when someone makes a statement in support of theism without sufficient reason/logic to back it up. And not just theism, other subjects too get the same scrutiny.

There is a saying, "those who never leave home think their mother is the best cook." You need to visit other threads to realise the bias isn't against religion/religious belief but against the lack of sufficient reason by those professed believers (and similar correspondents).

The above analogy, in philosophical arguments usually ends in a stalemate when the theist declares something to the tune of, "God is real to me!" And they shut out all further attempts at logical arguments thrown their way. Ironically, if that statement were the basis of the OP, I don't think anybody would have a problem with it. Nobody cares what you impose on yourself. On the other hand, what you try to impose on others... hmm. That's a whole other type of ball game. (**********)

Hi, you've mentioned 'external consistencies' with reference to mind and matter, but I'm curious, what would an 'internal consistency' be, if there's such?

Perhaps hell is just a colorful illustration of what happens to us when we ignore love and go racing off in the other direction? — Jake

I agree. And, maybe, the suffering implied by hell is a psychological consequence of that detachment from the ways of love (a metaphorical death) and which can even manifest in the physiological (hence the idea of pain).

Religion is not science, but is better compared to art. — Jake

Thanks for this. I wish people saw religious teachings as the true gem instead of heaping too much focus on the unnecessary stuff. If the scriptures were just teachings, like fiction, connected to our reality only by symbolism, then everything would be categorized logically. Perhaps.



I think it matters more what hell means than that it is. For me, hell is a situation that necessitates penance. It matters more that I learn and accept what I can't change and change what I can for the better.

I mean 'direct association' in the sense of a direct relationship e.g., face-to-face communication and such. If, as you say, there is substantial evidence of Alexander the Great's existence, then it validates Aristotle, Plato and Socrates because each had a direct relationship with the succeeding.
Personally, I don't think it matters that much because the more significant aspect is the teachings, and since there is no contention over 'copyrights' or ownership stuff, any identity would be as good as another. Even a good book whose author we don't know is still sufficient for study.

Everything, the whole of existence is composed of the same fundamental medium or 'substance' or 'material'. The rest is just mode of interaction. The mind may be immaterial to sensation which depends upon some form of contact with the body; while the body may be too material in contrast to the abstract nature of mind. What is not in dispute is that our lives make utility of both.

If we can prove beyond doubt that Alexander the Great existed, given that he's a phenomenal political figure and there's a much higher chance of finding evidence of him, then by direct association we can follow back to Socrates through Plato and Aristotle.
My biggest concern is that, it is said Plato's literary works are believed to have survived intact through the intervening years. I find that really hard to believe.