God Discovered!

[badpuppy]

I really see no sense in separating the two domains. Reality is reality. Even if one regards spiritual experiences as being more important than how the experiences are physically constructed, knowing how they are constructed can be useful.

Of course, but the danger I continue to hear is summarized in statements that it is "just your brain". Tell me that doesn't dismiss them, or at the least reduce them to mere oddities, blips in an otherwise rational world.

 

I think understanding the objective nature of our minds doesn't make them less special in the least. If not for our subjectivity, reality would be useless (to us, anyway).

 

LOL. Our minds have an objective nature? How could one possibly know that? Materialism/physicalism is still a metaphysical assumption. It's an assumption about how everything "works" and the basis on which it rests. How do you "know" this isn't a type of group dream created by a universal "Mind"? I know to you that may sound like... "How do you know we aren't all on a giant disc settled on the back of a turtle." But to me this is not a rhetorical thought experiment. It's a serious question. I'm willing to admit that, although I find it wholly illogical, that the purely materialistic/mechanistic way of understanding the universe could be true (even though quantum theory contradicts the notion), but rarely does a materialist admit this could all be an elaborate dream because the idea seems "weird". Well, the materialistic explanation for how we all got here is weird, too. It's just the "weird" that "intelligent people" accept while scoffing at the "less intelligent" (in their opinion). If we're starting from the wrong assumption, that's a pretty big deal. The Grand Theory of Everything we've been promised which will somehow unite Einstein's general relativity with quantum theory... I don't believe such a theory is going to be materialistic. It doesn't make any sense for it to be. There is too much weirdness already inherent in the world and especially in quantum theory for us to resort to a convenient reductionist physicalism anymore.

[Legion]

Do you think this "objective reality" exists "out there" somewhere?

mu

 

I don't know where to begin with this. Uh...

 

The question you're asking is odd in my assessment.

 

Can you rephrase somehow?

[Antlerman]

Let me throw this in as well as religion making a category error to speak to the natural world in matters of science. Purpose and meaning are philosophical propositions. That is the category of mind. It is a matter of reason and philosophy, and not the domain of religion either. The domain of religion is spirit and spirituality. Three domains. Body, mind, spirit.

 

Prior to the Enlightenment all three were under the umbrella of religion, but a very good thing happen. They split and differentiated into their own disciplines. Then a tragedy happened in that the success of science so trumped progress in the other domains that the others began to collapse into the domain of science in empiricism. That positive differentiation in order to fully devote non-distracted attention in the separate domains got swallowed alive into a dissociation of body, mind, and spirit, everything reduced to body. As you yourself just pointed out, there is in fact a knowledge that occurs beyond those domains.

 

Religion's true strength is that it has the one thing that none of the other domains have, not science nor philosophy. That is contemplation. That inner journey beyond concepts into the nature of our own 'is'ness'. That discipline does not exist in philosophy, nor in science, and it entirely valid. In fact without it, there is an incomplete whole. With all three domains, there in balance through integration. Not one area runs itself aground through ignoring the others.

 

I see no real separation between body, mind, and spirit

Which do you feed with books?

 

a) The body?

b ) The mind?

c) The spirit?

 

Answer: b ), the mind.

 

Which do you feed with a protein shake?

 

a) The body?

b ) The mind?

c) The spirit?

 

Answer A, the body (or A and B if you consider mind to equal brain which is body).

 

Brain is a biological organ, the body. Mind is the realm of thoughts and ideas. If mind is body, do you eat books?

 

There's a difference in how they function right there. Mind is not brain/body. Spirit is not mind/thoughts. Even though the order is body, mind, and spirit (or soul), they build a new emergent layer on top of previous layers, transcending and including. To understand the domain of thoughts you must use hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is not valid for studying the natural world. It is valid to understand other minds however. Sensory motor empiricism is not valid to interpret other minds through. They are in face unique domains in their own rights. Not isolated and separate by any means, but not reduced to lower levels. This doesn't even touch on the spiritual plane which is gnosis, or direct apprehension.

 

Please try to understand my thoughts by using an EEG. You'll never do it. It's not the right tool set. Mind understands mind as mind.

 

I think the the idea of religion becoming a separate domain than physical reality came about as a way for religious memes to continue to exist.

That is simply not true. Frankly, religion still hasn't figured it out yet. They're still busy trying to claim all three for themselves again! It was actually Kant who laid out the big three in his three critiques. It was an understanding spawned through philosophy, not religion.

 

What is the "religious meme" to you? Would you explain that?

 

It allowed human minds to remain suitable hosts for religious memes.

Not at all. It recognizes the legitimacy of science, as well as it's shortcoming into the other domains. Religion is as guilty of category errors as science became.

 

As far as spirituality goes, maybe there is room for some sort of spirituality divorced from any specific religious meme.

Yes and no. Yes in that spirituality transcends any limits of religious dogma. No in that as far as contemplative disciplines and teachings, what other organized disciplines have those? A religion held with an open hand as a tool, and not the limits of truth in some dogma, does in fact offer various programs of development into those areas. Where else does that exist like that?

 

And don't kid yourself, Buddhism is a religion.

 

For me, though it's kinda hard for me to explain how, science seems to be allowing me to be spiritual in a more substantial way than when I was infected with the christian meme.

Well, that's excellent! I relate to that. But then when you feel compelled to explore that in yourself even beyond not only Christianity, but what you have now, you'll begin to see the limits of just looking at nature. I fully, wholeheartedly agree that mysticism through nature is profoundly opening! That's where I lived for years. But imagine not just feeling the sunset open you existentially to the world, but becoming that sunset in yourself and experiencing yourself as that and beyond! That is where going in takes you, and why it is in fact a distinct domain (let's use that word instead of separate), with its own rules of engagement for exploration and knowledge.

 

Make sense?

 

After some thought, I see that being a physical being is no less special or "spiritual" than if our true selves were the casper-the-ghost sort of spirits.

Where you will really get what that means is when you fully encounter that interior Spirit. Then, what happens is the whole body and mind align in a full awakening, physically, mentally, spiritually. I was stunned at what happened in myself. I tried to put it into words for my partner and just kept telling her, "It's not like I would expect. The only word that best describes this is I feel healed. I'm whole. I didn't even realize how I wasn't until this. Healed is the only word to describe this". I still say same thing. It's all the parts integrated. You can't just examine the body and think that the rest can be understood by it. That is not going to work. That's just the rational mind engaging reason, not spirit. Each needs to be feed their own food, and then the whole become completed.

 

That, is spirituality to me.

[Legion]

LOL. Our minds have an objective nature? How could one possibly know that?

I want to skip the epistemology here and jump to an analogy.

 

An accomplished biologist once asserted, "Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

 

If this analogy has some measure of depth, then what sorts of things might it imply?

[badpuppy]

Do you think this "objective reality" exists "out there" somewhere?

mu

 

I don't know where to begin with this. Uh...

 

The question you're asking is odd in my assessment.

 

Can you rephrase somehow?

 

hmmm. Okay, well the assumption we generally go with is that the world we perceive is this "objective reality" "out there" (as in physically and materially real and distinct from us as observers of it), and we just have to "figure out how it works".

 

But *I* think, it's a big group dream. While it's important to me to understand certain aspects of the dream reality we all share, it's for practical purposes, not because I think it really explains the "ground of all being". People have not always understood reality through the materialistic lens and reduction of everything to dead matter that somehow became alive and self aware of itself (No matter how hard I try, I can't wrap my mind around that way of seeing things, much like you may not be able to wrap your mind around my dream framework.) To assume that ALL people before materialism were superstitious twits and therefore it's all random chemicals is a bizarre way of thinking, IMO.

 

Materialists believe matter creates mind. I believe mind creates matter. I think materialists have it backwards. So materialists can tell me all sorts of "facts" about this dream world (IMO) we inhabit, and that's great and also largely practical for our functioning in it, but it still doesn't "prove materialism". To me that's like counting all the tiles in your dream bathroom and saying that somehow makes that dream bathroom an objective, physical reality. Just because you can touch it, doesn't make it physical. I've had lucid dreams where I spent five (perceptual) minutes just TOUCHING textured wallpaper and marveling by how real it felt. Where was the body required for that experience? No body WAS required. Sure I had a "dream body" but we don't equate the dream body directly with our physical body... that's just some "projection of mind". How do you know you are not a projection of Mind?

 

But suspending my disbelief for a moment... everything in life happens through our perception and our senses. How is that in any way "objective" anything?

 

And this makes me... for some reason... think about another weird side trail... reincarnation. Dude, I live reincarnation every night when I go to sleep. From what I can tell there is no linear progression in my dream world. (It may be different for others as I don't have their dreams and can't say). The "I" is always there but it's plunged into a totally different "life". And then, I wake up into another 'already in progress' and perceptually longer life.

 

But that's just perception.

 

The bible makes me a bit itchy, but there are occasionally a few ideas inside it that make massive amounts of sense to me... for example the idea that to God a thousand years is like a day and vice versa. Einstein said that time and space were very persistent illusions. Did we think he was speaking poetically there? It seems clear to me that space and time are merely an organizational framework necessary for experience. How can we objectively say the earth is billions of years old? How can we "know" that? Is that how long the "dream" has lasted? Why or why not?

 

Again, I realize to a materialist all this is nonsense, but I think it's highly arrogant for us to randomly pick the version of reality we're most comfortable with (and for many scientists that seems to be materialism... gee, wonder why? Because if it's all a dream you feel less important for discovering facts about a nonobjective reality than you do for an objective one) and then act as if this is somehow an objective reality. No, it's another metaphysical assumption.

 

It's also common for materialists to claim that nonmaterialists need to provide the "proof" because they have the "extraordinary claim". I find materialism as the only driving force in the universe to be QUITE extraordinary as a claim. The point is... many materialists don't just "lack belief" in anything but matter, many push it forward as some empirical reality the rest of us much just nod and smile about. Um... where's the proof? How can anyone KNOW that materialism is in any way an objective reality? How can any one being who is limited by their own perception of reality know whether or not there is an objective reality or what it might be? At best materialists merely have a working framework... just like me.

 

If all we had was general relativity, it would still be beyond weird to me and hard for me to see how it makes any sense, but with that PLUS quantum theory. Are you freaking kidding me?

 

Re: the dream theory... some might say... well if it's just a dream, why don't you just wake up (i.e die)? Anyone who has had lucid dreams and the false awakenings (dream within a dream situation) will tell you that there is very little objective way to know that every reality we could be presented with isn't just another layer of the onion. It seems to "me" that the purpose of life is to experience. Experience for the sake of experience. (Which actually isn't totally unlike the atheist's "you create your own purpose")

 

The point is... I find value in the dream I'm in and i don't see dreams as "not real experiences" all experience is experience. Certain parts of the brain can't even tell the difference in personal dream experiences and consensus reality experiences. It's not like there is some clear dividing line, here. I find value in the human experience I'm having and the connections with other sentient beings in this experience.. It would be rather silly to end it just to see what comes next, especially as I'm likely to just "wake up in another dream" which I'll likely adorably assume is some "objective reality".

[MagickMonkey]

Reality is reality.

I think... yes and no.

 

I believe there DOES EXIST an objective reality. But I don't believe any of us have direct access to its nature. An understanding of the objective world is a relation between it and a subjective mind.

 

Do you think this "objective reality" exists "out there" somewhere?

 

Objective reality exists everywhere regardless of whether or not any conscious being is aware of it. There were rings around Saturn before any human could see them in a telescope. Of course rings and planets are human abstractions used to describe parts of reality, but that which we call Saturn and it's rings were there just the same.

[badpuppy]

LOL. Our minds have an objective nature? How could one possibly know that?

I want to skip the epistemology here and jump to an analogy.

 

An accomplished biologist once asserted, "Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

 

If this analogy has some measure of depth, then what sorts of things might it imply?

 

That is entirely a materialistic assumption. You are working from your own metaphysical assumption and using the argument from authority "an accomplished biologist once asserted" gives no more weight to your claim than my claim. We are all perceptual beings. It is fine for you to perceive the world as you perceive it, but IMO, it's a mistake to confuse your perception for empirical reality.

[badpuppy]

Reality is reality.

I think... yes and no.

 

I believe there DOES EXIST an objective reality. But I don't believe any of us have direct access to its nature. An understanding of the objective world is a relation between it and a subjective mind.

 

Do you think this "objective reality" exists "out there" somewhere?

 

Objective reality exists everywhere regardless of whether or not any conscious being is aware of it. There were rings around Saturn before any human could see them in a telescope. Of course rings and planets are human abstractions used to describe parts of reality, but that which we call Saturn and it's rings were there just the same.

 

Not to be pendantic here, but you're making an assumption. What qualifies you to make any of these statements? You're sitting here counting the bathroom tiles in our dream and asking me to accept the tiles are the ground of all being. Does not compute. Non sequitor. I can appreciate your view is a materialistic one, but please don't mistake your metaphysical assumption for empirical reality. It's just not a provable assertion.

 

And I disagree. I don't believe anything exists without an observer. Consciousness IMO is the X-factor.

[MagickMonkey]

I really see no sense in separating the two domains. Reality is reality. Even if one regards spiritual experiences as being more important than how the experiences are physically constructed, knowing how they are constructed can be useful.

Of course, but the danger I continue to hear is summarized in statements that it is "just your brain". Tell me that doesn't dismiss them, or at the least reduce them to mere oddities, blips in an otherwise rational world.

 

I think understanding the objective nature of our minds doesn't make them less special in the least. If not for our subjectivity, reality would be useless (to us, anyway).

 

LOL. Our minds have an objective nature? How could one possibly know that?

 

 

Through testable predictions made from observations. If you change the physical properties of a mind, the characteristics change as well. Remove someone's prefrontal cortex, and their mind is completely different. He or she will have damn little self control. Inject a person with neurotransmitters or chemicals that block neurotransmitters or screw with brain chemistry in any other way, and you have someone who acts and thinks differently.

 

 

Materialism/physicalism is still a metaphysical assumption. It's an assumption about how everything "works" and the basis on which it rests.

 

 

It's not merely an assumption. It's based on observations and testable predictions.

 

How do you "know" this isn't a type of group dream created by a universal "Mind"? I know to you that may sound like... "How do you know we aren't all on a giant disc settled on the back of a turtle." But to me this is not a rhetorical thought experiment. It's a serious question. I'm willing to admit that, although I find it wholly illogical, that the purely materialistic/mechanistic way of understanding the universe could be true (even though quantum theory contradicts the notion), but rarely does a materialist admit this could all be an elaborate dream because the idea seems "weird".

 

I can't absolutely know, but it seems damned unlikely. And I don't think quantum mechanics contradicts materialism. It simply describes how things work at a certain level.

 

Well, the materialistic explanation for how we all got here is weird, too. It's just the "weird" that "intelligent people" accept while scoffing at the "less intelligent" (in their opinion). If we're starting from the wrong assumption, that's a pretty big deal. The Grand Theory of Everything we've been promised which will somehow unite Einstein's general relativity with quantum theory... I don't believe such a theory is going to be materialistic. It doesn't make any sense for it to be. There is too much weirdness already inherent in the world and especially in quantum theory for us to resort to a convenient reductionist physicalism anymore.

 

When we have an infinite set of truths, no theory will encompass them all. A finite set if finite and flawed minds cannot know an infinite set of truths. But the understanding we have seems to be quite good. Call it weird, but the laws of physics are what they are because they are testable and shown to be true. Of course, as we learn more, we have to revise our theories. But testable theories trump speculation any day. However incomplete our theories may be, they are working for us now.

[Legion]

LOL. Our minds have an objective nature? How could one possibly know that?

I want to skip the epistemology here and jump to an analogy.

 

An accomplished biologist once asserted, "Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

 

If this analogy has some measure of depth, then what sorts of things might it imply?

 

That is entirely a materialistic assumption. You are working from your own metaphysical assumption and using the argument from authority "an accomplished biologist once asserted" gives no more weight to your claim than my claim. We are all perceptual beings. It is fine for you to perceive the world as you perceive it, but IMO, it's a mistake to confuse your perception for empirical reality.

Well badpuppy. It could've been fun. It could've been real. It could've been real fun.

 

Want to give it another shot?

[badpuppy]

@MM (sorry, originally I didn't specify who I was addressing and it occurs to me that could be confusing.) Okay, let me run this by you... lucid dreamers are well aware that there are repeatable experiments they can conduct to get in a lucid dream state, to stay in a lucid dream state, and to control their lucid dream state to various degrees. Does this make the lucid dream state an objective physical reality? Why or why not? It's controllable. It's testable. It's repeatable. I can feel it, smell it, taste it, touch it, hear it. Why isn't it physical? Why is it "not" physical but this IS physical? What is the logic you think makes this work?

 

I'm not saying this world is MY dream, I'm saying it is OUR dream. As such, it is more "solid" than a personal dream. But to me it is still a macrocosm of the microcosm. I DO respect science... even the materialistic variety because it is valuable to me to know how this particular dream operates so I can function effectively in it, but I just don't accept a materialistic metaphysical assumption. While the dream framework may not work for you (and I respect that), materialism makes NO sense to me. It's an entirely unproductive way for "me" to view things.

 

You can say you are right because you counted all the bathroom tiles in our dream bathroom, but... that doesn't make you "right". It means you perceive yourself as right. And that's fine.

 

I also admit that as fucking bizarre as it is, theoretically your metaphysical assumption about reality could be right and mine could be wrong. But I honestly don't think so. So that leaves us at an impasse. It's important to note though, that while most materialists act as if anyone who doesn't accept their assumptions is in some way mentally feeble, that I don't do the same. I don't think there is something "wrong" with you or your understanding simply because you're using a different framework to understand the nature of existence.

 

Obviously I don't think you're empirically right or I'd be using your framework, but it doesn't mean I think there is something wrong with you or that you are unintelligent or superstitious or the many myriad insults often leveled at any nonmaterialist.

 

Quantum mechanics doesn't contradict materialism? HAHAHAHA. Okay.

 

"seems to be" is the operative phrase in "seems to be quite good". You don't know how confident it makes me to know that materialism rests on what "seems to be" quite good evidence.

 

You call it speculation. I call it direct experience of my own mind. Potato Potahto

[Foxy Methoxy]

Come on, y'all! If God don't exist, how did He create everything?

[badpuppy]

Also @MM, yes.. materialism is (largely) "working for us now". That's the point. Learning about the consensus reality and applying that isn't "useless" in a nonmaterialistic assumption... it's just not "everything that is."

 

When I learn and apply repeatable principles to navigate my personal dream world I don't find that "useless" just because the nature of the thing isn't as solid as it seems while I'm in there.

[badpuppy]

Come on, y'all! If God don't exist, how did He create everything?

 

LMAO!!!!!

[badpuppy]

LOL. Our minds have an objective nature? How could one possibly know that?

I want to skip the epistemology here and jump to an analogy.

 

An accomplished biologist once asserted, "Mind is to brain as life is to organism."

 

If this analogy has some measure of depth, then what sorts of things might it imply?

 

That is entirely a materialistic assumption. You are working from your own metaphysical assumption and using the argument from authority "an accomplished biologist once asserted" gives no more weight to your claim than my claim. We are all perceptual beings. It is fine for you to perceive the world as you perceive it, but IMO, it's a mistake to confuse your perception for empirical reality.

Well badpuppy. It could've been fun. It could've been real. It could've been real fun.

 

Want to give it another shot?

 

Give what another shot? Cramming my mind into your perception just to be accepted as "rational"? No thanks.

[MagickMonkey]

 

Which do you feed with books?

 

a) The body?

b ) The mind?

c) The spirit?

 

Answer: b ), the mind.

 

 

When I read a book, new synapses are created. Feeding my mind in that sense is feeding the part of my body called a brain.

 

 

Which do you feed with a protein shake?

 

a) The body?

b ) The mind?

c) The spirit?

 

Answer A, the body (or A and B if you consider mind to equal brain which is body).

 

 

Yep, I would have answered A and B, and maybe C even, depending on how one defines that. If I consider the spirit to be an aspect of my mind, then all the above.

 

 

Brain is a biological organ, the body. Mind is the realm of thoughts and ideas. If mind is body, do you eat books?

 

 

In a metaphoric sense, sure! I know you're being a bit facetious here for the sake of making a point, but I like that metaphor. My brain is hungry and constantly wants to be fed!

 

 

There's a difference in how they function right there. Mind is not brain/body. Spirit is not mind/thoughts. Even though the order is body, mind, and spirit (or soul), they build a new emergent layer on top of previous layers, transcending and including. To understand the domain of thoughts you must use hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is not valid for studying the natural world. It is valid to understand other minds however. Sensory motor empiricism is not valid to interpret other minds through. They are in face unique domains in their own rights. Not isolated and separate by any means, but not reduced to lower levels. This doesn't even touch on the spiritual plane which is gnosis, or direct apprehension.

 

Please try to understand my thoughts by using an EEG. You'll never do it. It's not the right tool set. Mind understands mind as mind.

 

 

Well, and EEG doesn't gather enough information to begin to gather your thoughts. However, we (very slowly) approach being able to do that. Various tools can allow us to infer various things about what people are thinking.

 

 

I think the the idea of religion becoming a separate domain than physical reality came about as a way for religious memes to continue to exist.

That is simply not true. Frankly, religion still hasn't figured it out yet. They're still busy trying to claim all three for themselves again! It was actually Kant who laid out the big three in his three critiques. It was an understanding spawned through philosophy, not religion.

 

What is the "religious meme" to you? Would you explain that?

 

 

You know about memetics, right? There isn't a single religious meme, but christianity and islam and various other religions, especially the individual variants of these religions are concepts that evolve in a darwinistic sense. When christians start accepting evolution - something that goes against fundamental christian teachings about creation - that is an example of christian memes evolving to it's environment. Without this modification to christianity, no form of christian meme could "live" in a host (mind of a human) that accepts evolution as fact. Memetic theory is simply a very useful way at looking at the evolution of ideas.

 

 

It allowed human minds to remain suitable hosts for religious memes.

 

Not at all. It recognizes the legitimacy of science, as well as it's shortcoming into the other domains.

 

 

That is simply just another way at looking at the same phenomena. Religious views adapt to be compatible with the other ideas in the minds of their hosts.

 

Ok, I'm splitting my response here to avoid quotetag hell.

[Legion]

Give what another shot? Cramming my mind into your perception just to be accepted as "rational"? No thanks.

I had nothing like that in mind. lol I was hoping to exchange ideas with you.

 

You're not here to learn. And that's cool. tata

[MagickMonkey]

 

 

As far as spirituality goes, maybe there is room for some sort of spirituality divorced from any specific religious meme.

 

 

Yes and no. Yes in that spirituality transcends any limits of religious dogma. No in that as far as contemplative disciplines and teachings, what other organized disciplines have those? A religion held with an open hand as a tool, and not the limits of truth in some dogma, does in fact offer various programs of development into those areas. Where else does that exist like that?

 

 

And don't kid yourself, Buddhism is a religion.

 

 

 

For me, though it's kinda hard for me to explain how, science seems to be allowing me to be spiritual in a more substantial way than when I was infected with the christian meme.

 

 

Well, that's excellent! I relate to that. But then when you feel compelled to explore that in yourself even beyond not only Christianity, but what you have now, you'll begin to see the limits of just looking at nature. I fully, wholeheartedly agree that mysticism through nature is profoundly opening! That's where I lived for years. But imagine not just feeling the sunset open you existentially to the world, but becoming that sunset in yourself and experiencing yourself as that and beyond! That is where going in takes you, and why it is in fact a distinct domain (let's use that word instead of separate), with its own rules of engagement for exploration and knowledge.

 

 

Make sense?

 

 

Hehehe, not really. Maybe there's no sense to make of it. Or maybe if there is, I'm simply not ready for it. And I seem to be thriving in my naturalistic perspective.

 

 

 

 

After some thought, I see that being a physical being is no less special or "spiritual" than if our true selves were the casper-the-ghost sort of spirits.

 

 

Where you will really get what that means is when you fully encounter that interior Spirit. Then, what happens is the whole body and mind align in a full awakening, physically, mentally, spiritually. I was stunned at what happened in myself. I tried to put it into words for my partner and just kept telling her, "It's not like I would expect. The only word that best describes this is I feel healed. I'm whole. I didn't even realize how I wasn't until this. Healed is the only word to describe this". I still say same thing. It's all the parts integrated. You can't just examine the body and think that the rest can be understood by it. That is not going to work. That's just the rational mind engaging reason, not spirit. Each needs to be feed their own food, and then the whole become completed.

 

 

That, is spirituality to me.

 

 

Interesting!

[badpuppy]

Give what another shot? Cramming my mind into your perception just to be accepted as "rational"? No thanks.

I had nothing like that in mind. lol I was hoping to exchange ideas with you.

 

You're not here to learn. And that's cool. tata

 

It's not that I'm not here to learn, it's just that my personal experience leads me to believe that materialists are not here to learn (at least not anything beyond materialism). Why is it okay for a materialist to be SO sure of their assumption, but when I am it makes me "unteachable" and "unwilling to learn". Do you not see how arrogant that is?

 

The assumption here is that if a materialist "explains it right" I'm going to just roll over like a big dumb dog and wag my tail, grateful for the explanation.

 

I do not deny that materialistic science has value. I simply deny that it is the ground of all being. I am happy to learn new things about science. I'm also happy to learn about other people's perceptions. But implying that my mind is closed merely because materialism as "Everything there is" makes literally NO sense to me, is about as rational as me saying your mind is closed because you accept materialism as your working framework.

 

In my opinion we are both EQUALLY close-minded if by close-minded we mean: not just smiling and nodding at something somebody says just to not be seen as "stupid or close-minded" by them for having our own opinions and perceptions about reality.

 

Also me saying you have a metaphysical assumption as well... is NOT the same as me just "dismissing you" and your view. *I* have a metaphysical assumption. My point is we are ALL working from various assumptions about the nature of reality. And both of us think we're right. So why is my mind more closed than yours? Why am I less willing to learn than you?

[MagickMonkey]

@MM (sorry, originally I didn't specify who I was addressing and it occurs to me that could be confusing.) Okay, let me run this by you... lucid dreamers are well aware that there are repeatable experiments they can conduct to get in a lucid dream state, to stay in a lucid dream state, and to control their lucid dream state to various degrees. Does this make the lucid dream state an objective physical reality? Why or why not? It's controllable. It's testable. It's repeatable. I can feel it, smell it, taste it, touch it, hear it. Why isn't it physical? Why is it "not" physical but this IS physical? What is the logic you think makes this work?

 

I'm not saying this world is MY dream, I'm saying it is OUR dream. As such, it is more "solid" than a personal dream. But to me it is still a macrocosm of the microcosm. I DO respect science... even the materialistic variety because it is valuable to me to know how this particular dream operates so I can function effectively in it, but I just don't accept a materialistic metaphysical assumption. While the dream framework may not work for you (and I respect that), materialism makes NO sense to me. It's an entirely unproductive way for "me" to view things.

 

You can say you are right because you counted all the bathroom tiles in our dream bathroom, but... that doesn't make you "right". It means you perceive yourself as right. And that's fine.

 

I also admit that as fucking bizarre as it is, theoretically your metaphysical assumption about reality could be right and mine could be wrong. But I honestly don't think so. So that leaves us at an impasse. It's important to note though, that while most materialists act as if anyone who doesn't accept their assumptions is in some way mentally feeble, that I don't do the same. I don't think there is something "wrong" with you or your understanding simply because you're using a different framework to understand the nature of existence.

 

Obviously I don't think you're empirically right or I'd be using your framework, but it doesn't mean I think there is something wrong with you or that you are unintelligent or superstitious or the many myriad insults often leveled at any nonmaterialist.

 

Quantum mechanics doesn't contradict materialism? HAHAHAHA. Okay.

 

"seems to be" is the operative phrase in "seems to be quite good". You don't know how confident it makes me to know that materialism rests on what "seems to be" quite good evidence.

 

You call it speculation. I call it direct experience of my own mind. Potato Potahto

 

Hehehe, I've never quite had a lucid dream before. I've been aware that I've been dreaming, but for whatever reason, when this happens, I have the sudden urge to wake up rather than seize the opportunity. Afterwards, I realize that it is a missed opportunity. I'm sure lucid dreaming could be a lot of fun. Though I don't think I've quite had anything that quite counts as a lucid dream, I have noticed much inconsistencies and logical flaws with my dreams. In any case, even in a lucid dream, you realize you're dreaming, right? You know you're just simulating reality. Perhap if I can get myself to experience a real lucid dream, it would be interesting to devise some experiments to see how it compares to what you call "our dream". (I don't believe it's our dream, but I can't help but think that sounds cool)

[Rev R]

You're not here to learn. And that's cool. tata

 

Out of bounds. No one is here seeking instruction.

[Legion]

You're not here to learn. And that's cool. tata

 

Out of bounds. No one is here seeking instruction.

Out of bounds? I asked her an open question with few assumptions and she jumped all over me. At least that's how I saw it.

 

I know how pesky those perceptions can be though.

[Legion]

my personal experience leads me to believe that materialists are not here to learn (at least not anything beyond materialism).

My experience agrees.

 

 

 

I do not deny that materialistic science has value. I simply deny that it is the ground of all being.

I agree. I tend to believe that entailment is the ground of all being.

 

My point is we are ALL working from various assumptions about the nature of reality.

Agreed. But I think your assumptions about my assumptions were off the mark.

[badpuppy]

 

 

Hehehe, I've never quite had a lucid dream before. I've been aware that I've been dreaming, but for whatever reason, when this happens, I have the sudden urge to wake up rather than seize the opportunity. Afterwards, I realize that it is a missed opportunity. I'm sure lucid dreaming could be a lot of fun. Though I don't think I've quite had anything that quite counts as a lucid dream, I have noticed much inconsistencies and logical flaws with my dreams. In any case, even in a lucid dream, you realize you're dreaming, right? You know you're just simulating reality. Perhap if I can get myself to experience a real lucid dream, it would be interesting to devise some experiments to see how it compares to what you call "our dream". (I don't believe it's our dream, but I can't help but think that sounds cool)

 

Hey MM, yes, I know I'm dreaming. But I also know I'm dreaming right now. (Sorry, you HAD to know I was going for that one!) My personal experiences with lucid dreaming makes it impossible to just "assume" that this consensus reality we are both sharing in right now is somehow more "physical and real" than the personal dream world. The dream world has it's own internal logic. It doesn't match this logic. I think Oubouros said something in one thread about how the laws of physics we have aren't the "only" laws of physics that could exist in any universe because creationists like to talk about the special parameters of life without realizing that if that is the ONLY way life can exist that they just ruled out heaven and hell.

 

I think it's helpful to think of the dream world like that. We cannot apply the rules "here" to there. It's like falling down the rabbit hole, like Alice's Wonderland. Wonderland has it's own bizarre form of logic, but it IS bizarre. And yet, likewise I find plenty about "this" reality that is bizarre.

 

Oh... and this is just a side thought... sometimes when I'm having a lower-level lucid dream where all my own logic isn't exactly working, I run up to random dream characters and say: "This is a dream!" I find this hilarious when i wake up. It's like I want them to give me a cookie and a gold star for recognizing it. One of these days a dream character is going to smile at me and say: "No Shit, Sherlock."

 

And I respect that you don't see things the same way. There is a book I think called 30 days to lucid dreaming or something like that. Anyway there are several books and websites about learning to lucid dream and having deeper lucid dream experiences. It's a very cool experience. And even if in the end you still boil it down to some interesting chemical interaction in the brain, it's still a lot of fun. Flying when you're controlling that activity is pretty cool, as well.

[Antlerman]

I had nothing like that in mind. lol I was hoping to exchange ideas with you.

 

It's not that I'm not here to learn, it's just that my personal experience leads me to believe that materialists are not here to learn (at least not anything beyond materialism). Why is it okay for a materialist to be SO sure of their assumption, but when I am it makes me "unteachable" and "unwilling to learn". Do you not see how arrogant that is?

I might be wrong but I think who Legion was citing was the biologist Robert Rosen. Rosen was part of the fields of complexity sciences in biology. What he was driving at I believe is in fact a challenge to materialism. It is touching on emergent properties. That is not a reductionist approach.

 

I wish I had time to respond to everything. BTW, the things you say I very much find myself aligning with a lot of them.