# The mind and reality



## Mount Brocken

Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?


----------



## dilloduck

How about perceptions of reflections of reality ?


----------



## Mount Brocken

The major issue with this is that if the mind is nothing but reflections with varying perceptions, then every single statement one makes, which is based on what one knows, is subjective, even the statement that all statements are subjective, which is an infinite regress of contradictions.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?




Yes.


----------



## dilloduck

I think that is all the higher brain is. It uses sensory input to develop itself into a "surviving" entity. After survival it needs something to entertain it so it develops a "drama".


----------



## Mount Brocken

I am assuming that by saying _yes_ you have a third option.  For you cannot ascent to both for they are mutually exclusive in and of themselves.


----------



## Mount Brocken

dilloduck said:


> I think that is all the higher brain is. It uses sensory input to develop itself into a "surviving" entity. After survival it needs something to entertain it so it develops a "drama".


And your brain told you this?  How can you trust it if it's claims are based on entertainment and survival, not on truth?


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> I am assuming that by saying _yes_ you have a third option.  For you cannot ascent to both for they are mutually exclusive in and of themselves.




They most certainly are not. Reconciling Rationalism and Empiricism is hardly a novel concept.


----------



## dilloduck

Mount Brocken said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is all the higher brain is. It uses sensory input to develop itself into a "surviving" entity. After survival it needs something to entertain it so it develops a "drama".
> 
> 
> 
> And your brain told you this?  How can you trust it if it's claims are based on entertainment and survival, not on truth?
Click to expand...


Nothing can be trusted. I'm merely guessing.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> They most certainly are not. Reconciling Rationalism and Empiricism is hardly a novel concept.


They are mutually exclusive explicitly.  However, if one imports another aspect, i.e., representationalism or idealism, then they become modes of understanding.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Truth can be trusted, but models of knowledge, i.e. epistemic theories that promote an inner and outer world of ontology, cannot be trusted.


----------



## dilloduck

Understanding ? What is it that need to be "understood ".   ( weird word when ya think about it )


----------



## dilloduck

Mount Brocken said:


> Truth can be trusted, but models of knowledge, i.e. epistemic theories that promote an inner and outer world of ontology, cannot be trusted.



Assuming Truth can be recognized.


----------



## Mount Brocken

dilloduck said:


> Nothing can be trusted. I'm merely guessing.





dilloduck said:


> Understanding ? What is it that need to be "understood ".   ( weird word when ya think about it )


Well that question for one...


----------



## Mount Brocken

One needn't recognize truth only demonstrate it.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> They most certainly are not. Reconciling Rationalism and Empiricism is hardly a novel concept.
> 
> 
> 
> They are mutually exclusive explicitly.  ...
Click to expand...



No, they aren't. Kant took care of this for you over 200 years ago. Try to keep up.


----------



## dilloduck

Mount Brocken said:


> One needn't recognize truth only demonstrate it.



How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> No, they aren't. Kant took care of this for you over 200 years ago. Try to keep up.


Not at all.  Kant demonstrated that Hume's views on causality, ethics, etc., ignored the possibility that they stem from categories of the mind that are static and fixed.


----------



## Mount Brocken

dilloduck said:


> How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?


By being wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they aren't. Kant took care of this for you over 200 years ago. Try to keep up.
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.  Kant demonstrated that Hume's views on causality, ethics, etc., ignored the possibility that they stem from categories of the mind that are static and fixed.
Click to expand...



You need to read more than the back cover of the book. Do yourself a favor and actually study Kant seriously. You'll find it very interesting.

If you don't have time for formal education on the topic, look into Constructivism. You can probably find some material online and try to understand it as best you can.


----------



## dilloduck

Mount Brocken said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?
> 
> 
> 
> By being wrong.
Click to expand...


How will I know when you're wrong ?


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> You need to read more than the back cover of the book. Do yourself a favor and actually study Kant seriously. You'll find it very interesting.


I am not going to grace this with an answer since it is NOTHING MORE THAN AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!!  This is why I left Facebook.  I had hoped to find  gracious, intelligent, reasonable conversation here.  I suppose I was wrong.  For your information, I have read Kant from cover to cover.  I have written NUMEROUS papers on Kant.  I have a degree in Philosophy, have helped several academics with two master theses and a PhD dissertation.  So please do yourself a favor and treat me with respect and address ONLY my points and not perceptions about my background, intelligence, knowledge, etc...


----------



## Mount Brocken

Dilloduck, that is a great question.  I suppose you have to ask yourself how you determine the difference between what is true and what is false.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read more than the back cover of the book. Do yourself a favor and actually study Kant seriously. You'll find it very interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to grace this with an answer since it is NOTHING MORE THAN AN AD HOMINEM ATTACK!!!  ...
Click to expand...


No attack, just good advice.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> For your information, I have read Kant from cover to cover.  ...



Have read _what_ "cover to cover"? Kant had over 100 published works.


----------



## Mount Brocken

It is funny how you can assess my background based on a post on a forum.  Highly respected scholars in the field of Philosophy debate Kant even today and are far more contentious and certain of their conclusions but somehow you have a special knowledge of him that bars any other interpretation of _specific_ features of his doctrine.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> It is funny how you can assess my background based on a post on a forum. ...



Not so funny. You make it pretty easy.


----------



## Mount Brocken

The Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysic and Critique of Pure Reason.  I suggest you contact the Philosophy Department of Cologne, Prague or Berlin.  They could certainly benefit from your _certain_ knowledge of his views.


----------



## Mount Brocken

dilloduck said:


> How will I know when you're wrong ?





Unkotare said:


> Not so funny. You make it pretty easy.


I am not going to comment anymore.  It is clear you are not a serious intellectual.  You are just spewing out ad hominems and criticizing my background without an interest in a discussion on Epistemology.  This post was not a discussion of Kant.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> The Prolegomena to a Future Metaphysic and Critique of Pure Reason.  ...



So you took an intro course. That's good. You might have paid more attention, but it's a start.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> This post was not a discussion of Kant.



You're sure hoping it's not, 'cause there goes your OP up in smoke...


----------



## Mount Brocken

Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.


----------



## Pennywise

Mount Brocken said:


> Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.


The moron you found yourself engaged with never adds anything of worth to discussions here. The very idea that he would claim some expertise on philosophy is laughable considering he spends all his time here claiming to know more than everyone else. He will not even be able to decipher the irony of that.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Well perhaps he should go to 4chan if he wants laughs and seeks to belittle and bash people.  I am not claiming to be a scholar on Kant, but I do have some background and to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for.  If I wanted that I would go back to Facebook.


----------



## Pennywise

Mount Brocken said:


> Well perhaps he should go to 4chan if he wants laughs and seeks to belittle and bash people.  I am not claiming to be a scholar on Kant, but I do have some background and to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for.  If I wanted that I would go back to Facebook.



It's all he knows. He thinks he's the smartest one in the room at all times, but in reality he's just a perpetually mundane big mouth. Ignore his childish retorts and engage with people who are smart enough to know they don't know it all.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue.  For I certainly don't know it all, not even close.  It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him.  If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Mount Brocken said:


> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?



An ages old question:

"The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."

See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy


----------



## Mount Brocken

Wry Catcher said:


> An ages old question:
> 
> "The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."
> 
> See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy



Ah yes, Kantian distinctions.  I am aware of them.  I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question.  Not so much what we know, but how we know.  And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.


----------



## Mertex

Mount Brocken said:


> Well perhaps he should go to 4chan if he wants laughs and seeks to belittle and bash people.  I am not claiming to be a scholar on Kant, but I do have some background and to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for.  If I wanted that I would go back to Facebook.




Sometimes you just have to ignore the trolls.  Every forum is graced with them, and this one is no different.  After a while you get to know who they are and you simply ignore them.

If you want serious discussion without the nonsensical one-liners, go to the Clean Debate Zone.  They're not allowed to post their crap there and so they don't even go there.  You'll find plenty of decent people here that are willing to discuss issues whether they agree with you or not without calling names and insulting.  These trolls, not so much.


----------



## Pennywise

Mount Brocken said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ages old question:
> 
> "The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."
> 
> See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, Kantian distinctions.  I am aware of them.  I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question.  Not so much what we know, but how we know.  And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.
Click to expand...


This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Mertex said:


> Sometimes you just have to ignore the trolls.  Every forum is graced with them, and this one is no different.  After a while you get to know who they are and you simply ignore them.
> 
> If you want serious discussion without the nonsensical one-liners, go to the Clean Debate Zone.  They're not allowed to post their crap there and so they don't even go there.  You'll find plenty of decent people here that are willing to discuss issues whether they agree with you or not without calling names and insulting.  These trolls, not so much.


Thank you.  I am new and was 'baptized' into the forum with this sort of nonsense.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Pennywise said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ages old question:
> 
> "The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."
> 
> See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, Kantian distinctions.  I am aware of them.  I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question.  Not so much what we know, but how we know.  And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.
Click to expand...

I have just recently been acquainted with the works of Alan Watts and I must say I was really impressed.  He gave a lecture on G. K. Chesterton and how the basis of reality is wonder and surprise, as rooted in Buddhist teachings, I thought there was a great deal of richness and depth to it.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.



You feel qualified to make such an assessment?


----------



## Pennywise

Mount Brocken said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ages old question:
> 
> "The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."
> 
> See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, Kantian distinctions.  I am aware of them.  I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question.  Not so much what we know, but how we know.  And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have just recently been acquainted with the works of Alan Watts and I must say I was really impressed.  He gave a lecture on G. K. Chesterton and how the basis of reality is wonder and surprise, as rooted in Buddhist teachings, I thought there was a great deal of richness and depth to it.
Click to expand...


College radio used to run his recorded lectures back in the late 80's. If you search his name you can find downloads of them on the web. His books are remarkable. I believe he was truly enlightened.


----------



## Unkotare

Pennywise said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your responses mirror that of 4chan, not of any serious discussion on anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The moron you found yourself engaged with never adds anything of worth to discussions here. The very idea that he would claim some expertise on philosophy is laughable considering he spends all his time here claiming to know more than everyone else. He will not even be able to decipher the irony of that.
Click to expand...





And just look at all _your_ wonderful contributions!


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> to be disrespected like this is not what I was looking for.  .




Then perhaps you should be more careful with categorical statements. And stop being so sensitive.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue.  For I certainly don't know it all, not even close.  It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him.  If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.




You seem a little _blocked up_ yourself, champ.


----------



## Mertex

Pennywise said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ages old question:
> 
> "The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."
> 
> See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, Kantian distinctions.  I am aware of them.  I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question.  Not so much what we know, but how we know.  And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" *he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.*
Click to expand...


I've often thought of that, but when I have voiced it to anyone (husband), I always get a look of   We really can't be sure, can we?  Sometimes they don't even understand what I'm trying to say....so I've not brought it up again.  I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of these weird possibilities!


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ages old question:
> 
> "The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."
> 
> See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, Kantian distinctions.  I am aware of them.  I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question.  Not so much what we know, but how we know.  And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.
Click to expand...



That is exactly what those terms are often used to discuss; what lies at the heart of the question Kant reconciled.


----------



## Mertex

Unkotare said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue.  For I certainly don't know it all, not even close.  It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him.  If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem a little _blocked up_ yourself, champ.
Click to expand...



Geez, I thought you were better than that.  Why don't you try being civil instead of snarky.....being snarky doesn't make you look smart.


----------



## percysunshine

Wow! ... this is impressive for a first ever thread. Three pages of response.

Congratulations Brocken.


----------



## Pennywise

Mertex said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> An ages old question:
> 
> "The terms “a priori” and “a posteriori” are used primarily to denote the foundations upon which a proposition is known. A given proposition is knowable a priori if it can be known independent of any experience other than the experience of learning the language in which the proposition is expressed, whereas a proposition that is knowable a posteriori is known on the basis of experience. For example, the proposition that all bachelors are unmarried is a priori, and the proposition that it is raining outside now is a posteriori."
> 
> See:  A Priori and A Posteriori Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, Kantian distinctions.  I am aware of them.  I was referring however to the basis of knowledge, more of a metaepistemic question.  Not so much what we know, but how we know.  And not just how we know, but the ontological question of the mind and whether there is an external world at all or whether all things come from Mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" *he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've often thought of that, but when I have voiced it to anyone (husband), I always get a look of   We really can't be sure, can we?  Sometimes they don't even understand what I'm trying to say....so I've not brought it up again.  I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks of these weird possibilities!
Click to expand...


Yes, people give funny looks when you ask something that questions what is reality. When the question was pointed toward me, my immediate reaction was that it was nonsense, until I really started to think about it.


----------



## Unkotare

Mertex said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue.  For I certainly don't know it all, not even close.  It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him.  If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem a little _blocked up_ yourself, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I thought you were better than that.
Click to expand...



Geez, I thought you knew me better than that. This kind of thread always needs an ego-relief valve or it will explode from built-up pretense. But by all means do carry on. It's an important topic. A look into Constructivism may prove fruitful to the discussion.


----------



## Mertex

Unkotare said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I prefer those sorts of dialogue.  For I certainly don't know it all, not even close.  It is a shame however that the moderator of this site doesn't somehow block him.  If one is only creating an atmosphere irritation and humiliation, it would seem he should be blocked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem a little _blocked up_ yourself, champ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I thought you were better than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Geez, I thought you knew me better than that. This kind of thread always needs an ego-relief valve or it will explode from built-up pretense. But by all means do carry on. It's an important topic. A look into Constructivism may prove fruitful to the discussion.
Click to expand...


Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....


----------



## Mount Brocken

Unkotare said:


> Then perhaps you should be more careful with categorical statements. And stop being so sensitive.


You are nothing but an intellectual bully.  It is a shame however you lack the former and possess the latter.  I ask about the conditions of the mind, you make a blanket statement about Kant, WHICH IS NOT REGARDED AS AN ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF IDEALISM AT ALL, and then spout out some special knowledge of Kant that you know and I mustn't know since you assume I haven't read him, or have missed something in reading him.  I think you should discuss this with Alvin Plantinga or Frank Jackson since we amateurs are not on your level.  I have their email addresses and have corresponded with them before.  You can have them if you wish.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Mertex said:


> Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....


Exactly.  When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out.  This does not help in any meaningful dialogue.  And one has to think of the motivation behind it.  Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else.  I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion.  If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have.  Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.


----------



## Pennywise

Mount Brocken said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out.  This does not help in any meaningful dialogue.  And one has to think of the motivation behind it.  Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else.  I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion.  If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have.  Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.
Click to expand...


The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Pennywise said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out.  This does not help in any meaningful dialogue.  And one has to think of the motivation behind it.  Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else.  I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion.  If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have.  Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.
Click to expand...


I agree completely.  It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit.  The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar.  It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.


----------



## Pennywise

Mount Brocken said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out.  This does not help in any meaningful dialogue.  And one has to think of the motivation behind it.  Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else.  I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion.  If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have.  Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit.  The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar.  It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.
Click to expand...


And, if I may offer, the very nature of philosophy itself bespeaks that you or I have as much relevance to the discussion as any scholar ever had. Your thoughts are as worthy as those of Alan Watts or Plato.

I think @shart_attack might have something worth bringing to this discussion.


----------



## Mount Brocken

Pennywise said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out.  This does not help in any meaningful dialogue.  And one has to think of the motivation behind it.  Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else.  I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion.  If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have.  Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit.  The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar.  It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if I may offer, the very nature of philosophy itself bespeaks that you or I have as much relevance to the discussion as any scholar ever had. Your thoughts are as worthy as those of Alan Watts or Plato.
> 
> I think @shart_attack might have something worth bringing to this discussion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.  Socrates was nothing more than a man that sought to dismantle the sophist's platform of truth to the highest bidder.  And look at Diogenes of Sinope.  He was a homeless clot that went around mocking society and smelling quite bad the whole time.  The unprofessional philosopher is the basis of philosophical questions in the first place.  They start on the street corners, the kitchen tables well before they make it to the university lecture halls and academic journals.


----------



## Pennywise

Mount Brocken said:


> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out.  This does not help in any meaningful dialogue.  And one has to think of the motivation behind it.  Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else.  I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion.  If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have.  Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit.  The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar.  It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if I may offer, the very nature of philosophy itself bespeaks that you or I have as much relevance to the discussion as any scholar ever had. Your thoughts are as worthy as those of Alan Watts or Plato.
> 
> I think @shart_attack might have something worth bringing to this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely.  Socrates was nothing more than a man that sought to dismantle the sophist's platform of truth to the highest bidder.  And look at Diogenes of Sinope.  He was a homeless clot that went around mocking society and smelling quite bad the whole time.  The unprofessional philosopher is the basis of philosophical questions in the first place.  They start on the street corners, the kitchen tables well before they make it to the university lecture halls and academic journals.
Click to expand...


Any time a talented comedian makes a social statement through comedy, they are philosophizing. Any time some blue collar schlub makes a comment that synopsizes a thought deeper than is readily observed at surface level, that is philosophy.


----------



## shart_attack

Pennywise said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pennywise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's always a choice to reply civilly instead of snarky.  Especially to new members.  I know this topic brings controversy, but it doesn't have to turn into an ugly mud fight.....if I don't agree with someone, I don't hesitate to tell them, but I don't have to make it personal, and I try not to.  I have engaged in snarky behavior myself, but it is usually with one doing that to me and only after I have tried repeatedly to be civil back to them.  I know you are better than that....
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  When I get angry, not from being wrong but from being attacked personally, I have a tendency to lash out.  This does not help in any meaningful dialogue.  And one has to think of the motivation behind it.  Does said person want to discuss or just try to look smarter than everyone else.  I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a book reviewer for an academic journal, or I could whip out my books by and on Kant, but this is supposed to be an informal discussion.  If I misrepresent Kant, tell me how I have.  Don't tell me how I have no background in Philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The backbone of philosophy is introspection. One seeks to understand meaning and purpose beyond themselves, by looking inward, searching their own mind for answers to things that are actually beyond man's grasp. It's an exercise (perhaps of folly) to broaden our views, and anyone who would use a related discussion to attempt to belittle another by exclamations of "knowing" more than you, just illustrates a complete failure to understand that which they claim to be a master of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree completely.  It is not always, nor does it need to be, a profession or academic pursuit.  The self styled philosopher has as much to contribute as the scholar.  It is a way of looking at not only the world and one's place in it, but an inward look at one's self and the bases for knowledge and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And, if I may offer, the very nature of philosophy itself bespeaks that you or I have as much relevance to the discussion as any scholar ever had. Your thoughts are as worthy as those of Alan Watts or Plato.
> 
> I think @shart_attack might have something worth bringing to this discussion.
Click to expand...


Thanks, bro.

But I'm a bit late to this party.

Gotta go back and read the thread up to here so I'll have a clue what's up.


----------



## shart_attack

Mount Brocken said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By being wrong.
Click to expand...


Are _wrong_ and _incorrect_ the same thing to you? 

One term implies and ethical or moral failing or tort, the other merely some mistaken reasoning, yes?


----------



## percysunshine

Anyone ever read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'?

.


----------



## dilloduck

hell ya---Phaedrus.  Great book


----------



## percysunshine

.

So, should Truth be subservient to Good, or Good subservient to Truth?

In reality anyway.

.


----------



## Pennywise

percysunshine said:


> .
> 
> So, should Truth be subservient to Good, or Good subservient to Truth?
> 
> In reality anyway.
> 
> .



You need to define good. It may a good thing to kill someone, depending on the circumstances. And who defines "truth"? Are facts and truth synonymous?


----------



## dilloduck

I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias. Men have even invented the methods that we use to so call "prove" things. Convenient huh ?


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then perhaps you should be more careful with categorical statements. And stop being so sensitive.
> 
> 
> 
> You are nothing but an intellectual bully.  ..
Click to expand...



If you're over the age of 12, you're too old to be crying "bully!" Come on now, we've talked about this...


----------



## Unkotare

dilloduck said:


> I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias.



Every one of those senses can be very easily and very thoroughly deceived.


----------



## dilloduck

Unkotare said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of those senses can be very easily and very thoroughly deceived.
Click to expand...


Absolutely but a person would have no reference point without them. We're doomed to be deceived anyway.


----------



## Unkotare

Mount Brocken said:


> I could throw out a lot of technical terminology, since I a [sic] book reviewer for an academic journal...




Wow, you a book reviewer? Me impressed.


----------



## Unkotare

dilloduck said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I "trust" things that I perceive through my 5 basic senses. Everything else is a bit iffy and subject to my bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every one of those senses can be very easily and very thoroughly deceived.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolutely but a person would have no reference point without them.
Click to expand...



Or perhaps our true reference point lies elsewhere.


----------



## dilloduck

perhaps---


----------



## Mount Brocken

shart_attack said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it possible to NOT demonstrate the Truth ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are _wrong_ and _incorrect_ the same thing to you?
> 
> One term implies and ethical or moral failing or tort, the other merely some mistaken reasoning, yes?
Click to expand...

Good point.  That is one of the unfortunate features of languages.  Words out of context.  A word can be applied as a term.  I wasn't appealing to terminology, just the word in the specific context.


----------



## midcan5

"The mind is the effect, not the cause." Daniel Dennett



> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?



First off the mind is the brain is the mind. Perceptions and reflections are the same thing. Content assumes storage. Empirical is about observation and experiment. Reality on the other hand is all over the place for unless something is concrete, people above mere survival create lots of reality until the day comes when something contradicts their assumed reality. 

"Ideologies are stories we tell ourselves.  That's okay, as long as we remember that they are are just stories - and not reflections of reality."  Stewart Brand

I would suggest Daniel Dennett's books for the interested reader.


----------



## Mount Brocken

I disagree with Dennett's ontological perspective.  He is a materialist.


----------



## Vikrant

Pennywise said:


> This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend in the distant past, during the time at which I began my introspections focusing mainly at the time(almost 30 years ago) on eastern philosophy and most specifically the work of Alan Watts. The question directed at me was "how do you know the colors you see are the same as the colors I see?" he went to further make the case that it could very well be that my vision of red is his vision of green, etc.



This basically brings us to harsh reality that we can never really communicate our thoughts to others regardless of our mastery on the language. This leads to another harsh realization that you could never learn from others. You are on your own serving a solitary confinement. During this confinement what we call life, we learn things and feel things. We do our best to convey to others what we learn and what feel. I think this is what we are doing here despite knowing the daunting nature of the task.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Mount Brocken said:


> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?



Misperceptions of misunderstood reality.


----------



## Vikrant

Mind is what makes things real. If you take mind out of the equation then nothing is real. You cannot access past. You cannot access future. We feel like present is accessible but how do you measure present when it does not stand still even for the smallest imaginable unit of time. So where is our existence? It is certainly not in the past, future or even in the present. Our existence simply lies in our mind. That is where we access past. That is where we experience present. This memory helps us deduce a predictable pattern we call future. People do not seem to realize this uniqueness that is associated with consciousness.


----------



## Treeshepherd

The brain is a filter, like a sluice box. And that tiny amount of sensory input that shakes out of the final micro-screen is further edited by the brain. In short, the brain is a powerful filter and real-time editor. Seeing is believing. Believing is seeing. Both of those statements have merit. 

The edits are shaped by belief. For example, if you fear people of a certain race, you are more likely to pick them out of a perp lineup. Memory is largely comprised of fabrications. 

Buddhism was mentioned, and Alan Watts. Buddhism stresses the concept of maya (illusion). Our brains work very hard to keep us living in the ego-self. There, we perceive the universe as made up of separate elements. We identify as 'individuals'. On the one hand, it is true that I am separate from that tree or rock. On the other hand, the universe is one indivisible continuous unity. Paradox.


----------



## Unkotare

Treeshepherd said:


> The brain is a filter, like a sluice box. ..




A filter into what?


----------



## Treeshepherd

A filter of what? That would be the question. Things go into filters. Filters don't go into things, as a general rule


----------



## Unkotare

Treeshepherd said:


> A filter of what? That would be the question. Things go into filters. Filters don't go into things, as a general rule




And? What's your answer?


----------



## Treeshepherd

My answer is that the vast majority of potential sensory input is filtered out by the brain, so we are able to do things like drive a car or type on this wretched iPhone device. It goes without saying that I'm using an analogy, and there is not literally a charcoal filter in the brain. 

Another analogy I like expresses an alternative model of Mind. We can talk about the conscious universe, or the Great Mind described by Edgar Cayce, or Jung's collective unconscious. 

And then we can imagine the brain, not as the source of consciousness, but more like a transistor radio which condenses consciousness from without. And the we can imagine becoming stuck on this channel or that frequency, and so on


----------



## dilloduck

I guess the brain filters sensory input for whatever you want to identify as the "person" or "self" part of ourselves.


----------



## Bonita Louise

Treeshepherd said:


> The brain is a filter, like a sluice box. And that tiny amount of sensory input that shakes out of the final micro-screen is further edited by the brain. In short, the brain is a powerful filter and real-time editor. Seeing is believing. Believing is seeing. Both of those statements have merit.
> 
> The edits are shaped by belief. For example, if you fear people of a certain race, you are more likely to pick them out of a perp lineup. Memory is largely comprised of fabrications.
> 
> Buddhism was mentioned, and Alan Watts. Buddhism stresses the concept of maya (illusion). Our brains work very hard to keep us living in the ego-self. There, we perceive the universe as made up of separate elements. We identify as 'individuals'. On the one hand, it is true that I am separate from that tree or rock. On the other hand, the universe is one indivisible continuous unity. Paradox.


You have a fairly good handle on the concept of non dualism. I've read this thread and will hopefully return tomorrow and join the discussion. Right now i am falling asleep, lol.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Mount Brocken said:


> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?



Misperceptions of reality I'd say. What reality consists of isn't perceived fully by our senses and so what's in our minds about the nature of reality is incorrect.


----------



## Thunderbird

It is easier for atheists to get lost in the hyperreal house of mirrors.

Because:
1) Materialists lack access to or even awareness of a being who knows the absolute Truth.
2) If our universe is considered accidental and deficient man will be more inclined to find refuge in a virtual universe of his own making.
3) If man thinks himself less than the Imago Dei he may feel incompetent to discern what’s lacking in a virtual world.


----------



## Mindful

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Misperceptions of reality I'd say. What reality consists of isn't perceived fully by our senses and so what's in our minds about the nature of reality is incorrect.
Click to expand...


Wish that were so.........sometimes.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

We only see a fraction of the light spectrum, hear a fraction of the audible spectrum, etc. etc. Our opinion of reality is based upon a small fraction of reality.


----------



## Mindful

Delta4Embassy said:


> We only see a fraction of the light spectrum, hear a fraction of the audible spectrum, etc. etc. Our opinion of reality is based upon a small fraction of reality.




So.......what's the point of us? Of anything?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Mindful said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only see a fraction of the light spectrum, hear a fraction of the audible spectrum, etc. etc. Our opinion of reality is based upon a small fraction of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.......what's the point of us? Of anything?
Click to expand...


Who said there has to be a point? If a gamma ray burst takes us out suddenly, what was the point? Or was there never a point to begin with?


----------



## Mindful

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only see a fraction of the light spectrum, hear a fraction of the audible spectrum, etc. etc. Our opinion of reality is based upon a small fraction of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.......what's the point of us? Of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said there has to be a point? If a gamma ray burst takes us out suddenly, what was the point? Or was there never a point to begin with?
Click to expand...


There has to be. Because we are subjective creatures. Our interpretation of reality is subjective.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Mindful said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only see a fraction of the light spectrum, hear a fraction of the audible spectrum, etc. etc. Our opinion of reality is based upon a small fraction of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.......what's the point of us? Of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said there has to be a point? If a gamma ray burst takes us out suddenly, what was the point? Or was there never a point to begin with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has to be. Because we are subjective creatures. Our interpretation of reality is subjective.
Click to expand...


We invent purpose because our brains are capable of greatly overcomplicating the simplest of things. But objectively, there's no purpose except whatever we invent for ourselves. A big comet can hit us any moment wiping out all life. The entire history of life on earth then ceases to exist, along with all the invented purpose. So how real was the purpose in the first place?


----------



## Mindful

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only see a fraction of the light spectrum, hear a fraction of the audible spectrum, etc. etc. Our opinion of reality is based upon a small fraction of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.......what's the point of us? Of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said there has to be a point? If a gamma ray burst takes us out suddenly, what was the point? Or was there never a point to begin with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has to be. Because we are subjective creatures. Our interpretation of reality is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We invent purpose because our brains are capable of greatly overcomplicating the simplest of things. But objectively, there's no purpose except whatever we invent for ourselves. A big comet can hit us any moment wiping out all life. The entire history of life on earth then ceases to exist, along with all the invented purpose. So how real was the purpose in the first place?
Click to expand...


That may well be so.

But the average brain can't comprehend that stuff.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Mindful said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> We only see a fraction of the light spectrum, hear a fraction of the audible spectrum, etc. etc. Our opinion of reality is based upon a small fraction of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So.......what's the point of us? Of anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said there has to be a point? If a gamma ray burst takes us out suddenly, what was the point? Or was there never a point to begin with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has to be. Because we are subjective creatures. Our interpretation of reality is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We invent purpose because our brains are capable of greatly overcomplicating the simplest of things. But objectively, there's no purpose except whatever we invent for ourselves. A big comet can hit us any moment wiping out all life. The entire history of life on earth then ceases to exist, along with all the invented purpose. So how real was the purpose in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may well be so.
> 
> But the average brain can't comprehend that stuff.
Click to expand...


It can. it simply isn't much fun to do so if a pretty lie is more palattable.


----------



## Mindful

Delta4Embassy said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> So.......what's the point of us? Of anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said there has to be a point? If a gamma ray burst takes us out suddenly, what was the point? Or was there never a point to begin with?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has to be. Because we are subjective creatures. Our interpretation of reality is subjective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We invent purpose because our brains are capable of greatly overcomplicating the simplest of things. But objectively, there's no purpose except whatever we invent for ourselves. A big comet can hit us any moment wiping out all life. The entire history of life on earth then ceases to exist, along with all the invented purpose. So how real was the purpose in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may well be so.
> 
> But the average brain can't comprehend that stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It can. it simply isn't much fun to do so if a pretty lie is more palattable.
Click to expand...


Yours can.......perhaps?

You can't speak for all. That's also a false perception.


----------



## Mindful

What s The Point Of Anything Thought Catalog


----------



## Vikrant

If a brain cannot comprehend a comet hitting us and wiping us out then it is not an average brain


----------



## Mindful

Vikrant said:


> If a brain cannot comprehend a comet hitting us and wiping us out then it is not an average brain




Not that a value judgement like that would remotely matter if  such a scenario occurred.


----------



## dilloduck

Is it a value judgement that even matters now ?


----------



## Mindful

dilloduck said:


> Is it a value judgement that even matters now ?



We'll never know. Not from this side of eternity.


----------



## dilloduck

that's so unfair----how many sides does eternity have anyway ?


----------



## Mindful

dilloduck said:


> that's so unfair----how many sides does eternity have anyway ?



Is that a quiz question?

Meant for one of those average brains mentioned up thread?


----------



## Vikrant

The art of philosophy simply seeks to examine the validity of a given logic. That is all philosophy does and should - pretty much. However, we have to get few facts right about the world we live in before we can engage in philosophy. It becomes especially necessary when absurdities take over a thread in Science and Technology or Philosophy section. 

When Theory of Big Bang (Big Bang Theory) started to gain prominence, it got nutcases all excited because it stated that universe was not always around and that it had a beginning and perhaps it will have an end. This was an exciting news to them because to them this meant that there was a creator who created the universe. But we will leave the creator alone in this post and focus on time alone for the time being. There is no such thing as eternity because universe itself has beginning and end. Analysis of background microwave radiation and few other things establish the age of our universe to be around 20-billion years. 

The very concept of eternity implies that there is no ending to time. However, time along with space, matter, etc. is just one of the components of the universe that came into being at the time universe came about. So it had a beginning and it will have an end. When the time ends, how will your eternity continue since its very existence is centered on the concept of endless time? 

One of the hardest things to get your head wrapped around when you are trying to understand the mojo of theory of relativity is light cone. If you are interested in understanding light cone, please head to Delta's thread on theory of relativity. I have explained in detail what a light cone is with diagrams and some mathematics. In brief, if you are standing at the tip of the vertices of the light cone, you will go in future if you head up; you will end up in past if you head down. (I am posting the diagram below for your visualization. ) 

That is an equilibrium we find ourselves at - at least us mortals do. But it all can change and you can just as easily find yourself in future or past light cone with a slight rearranged spacetime geometry. If you look at the diagram, the past light cone has a focus. This tells you that time has a beginning. The future light cone too has a focus. This tells you that time has an ending. This tells you few other things but I will just mention one more: the universe has a horizon. This means that the universe is finite. 







Light cone - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mindful

Have you ever read The Allegory of the Cave?


----------



## Vikrant

LOL


----------



## Mindful

You wouldn't, if you were crouched in that cave with only your illusions of reality to keep you company.


----------



## dilloduck

Man is doomed to "discover" partial truths that only serve to pose more questions. I'm sure some have a great time with partial truths.


----------



## Mindful

Best answer so far. 

But I do have a problem with "truths". Because the definition leads one into  yet another labyrinth.


----------



## dilloduck

Mindful said:


> Best answer so far.
> 
> But I do have a problem with "truths". Because the definition leads one into  yet another labyrinth.



I guess we could call them observations transformed into a " framework language" that some people can speak.


----------



## gtopa1

Has anyone mentioned Popper yet??

Greg


----------



## Mindful

gtopa1 said:


> Has anyone mentioned Popper yet??
> 
> Greg



He had to move to New Zealand, to get away from the Nazis. Despite his being a Lutheran.


----------



## gtopa1

dilloduck said:


> Mindful said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best answer so far.
> 
> But I do have a problem with "truths". Because the definition leads one into  yet another labyrinth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could call them observations transformed into a " framework language" that some people can speak.
Click to expand...

I would put it another way. Our mind creates our reality through all the senses including language. These get re-created into language when we want to transmit our construct of reality. So the old saying that goes "what you mean and what you said and what I think you mean is not always the same as what I say is what I think you meant."

Hey: It's early morning here. Where's my coffee!!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1

Mindful said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone mentioned Popper yet??
> 
> Greg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had to move to New Zealand, to get away from the Nazis. Despite his being a Lutheran.
Click to expand...


He was indeed a GREAT thinker, but always insisted that he was only an amateur Philosopher and suggested that all Philosophers should be amateurs. The role of creativity in Science, and hence knowledge and truth, is central and re-enforces the nature of Humanity as creative beings. 



> Another important aspect of Popper’s scientific view is that Popper considers the formation of a scientific hypothesis a creative and imaginative process. There is just no ‘scientific method’ by which a scientist can form a hypothesis. He has to be original and creative, and to use his imagination. It shows the role creativity and imagination has to play in the progress of science. Great scientific theories like theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the result of the spontaneous and intuitive ideas of the scientists. It is this creative aspect of Popper’s scientific method which has been admired by the scientists, and has also been a factor leading to the popularity of this point of view.



An Amateur s History of Modern Philosophy Karl Popper

So is there any truth in the statement that "Man created God"? Of course there is, but even so one cannot falsify that God, irrespective of our creativity, exists and is a personal God. 

Greg


----------



## there4eyeM

Mount Brocken said:


> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?


Is neither.


----------



## Bonita Louise

JP Bedard...Touching the Veil of Thin Places..


"Bluebells" 
by: JP Bédard

"On your way, a road
You must walk all alone
But the road you're on
You are not
On your own

Today I awoke in a world
All in enchanted
Looking for the place
Always taken for granted

Content with being lost
Not having all the answers
Guided by the singers,
Poets, and the dancers

The part that lay dormant
All these many years
Now suddenly awake
Brought to life with these tears

Like a teddy bear ragged
And missing one eye
Being hugged and dragged
Feeling love,
In great supply

Being perfect, or recovered
Is no longer my goal
I've discovered instead
The art to feeling whole

Walking through a valley
Bluebells as far as the eye can see
I've discovered in myself
What I always knew to be"

This one of my favorite poems on the transcendent.


----------



## gtopa1

there4eyeM said:


> Mount Brocken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the content of the mind perceptions of reality or reflections of empirical reality?
> 
> 
> 
> Is neither.
Click to expand...


Is what?

Greg


----------

