midniterider Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 Enjoy your phaneron. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RankStranger Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 I've asked myself the same question before- and couldn't come up with a satisfactory answer. So I just operate on the assumption that the world around me is in fact real... it'd be damn impractical to assume that isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 23, 2013 Share Posted August 23, 2013 So Realism is my religion! Oh, and thanks for sharing this. I'm watching more of the Vsauce vids. Very nice. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Of course it's real. It hurts when I bump into it in the dark. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denyoz Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Of course it's real. It hurts when I bump into it in the dark. But if you are dreaming that you are bumping your head in the dark, it might also hurt. Until you wake up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 10, 2013 Author Share Posted September 10, 2013 Here's a pretty good video about how we define reality. Anti-wooists plug your ears around 17:30. The word 'soul' is used instead of 'awareness' or 'consciousness' which would have been my preference. Pretty good presentation though overall using logic and science. If anyone can find a video concerning 'dynamically generated reality' I'd like to watch it. I get tired of reading sometimes. :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted September 10, 2013 Share Posted September 10, 2013 Its a very interesting question. Mostly in eastern religion but also even in western philosophy. Bishop George Berkeley: Berkeley’s famous principle is esse is percipi, to be is to be perceived. Berkeley was an idealist. He held that ordinary objects are only collections of ideas, which are mind-dependent. Berkeley was an immaterialist. He held that there are no material substances. There are only finite mental substances and an infinite mental substance, namely, God http://www.iep.utm.edu/berkeley/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denyoz Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 If anyone can find a video concerning 'dynamically generated reality' I'd like to watch it. I get tired of reading sometimes. :-) There is a lot of stuff, including videos, on the subject of "creating your own reality" if this is what you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REBOOT Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 http://onswipe.com/thedailygalaxy/#!/entry/are-we-living-in-a-holographic-universe-this-may-be,4fd035474b672622b824b30a The holographic universe. Turns out it holds water and our 3dimensional universe could be described in 2d at the plank scale (strings). Damn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deva Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 BO: All our perceptions of the world are only as good as the senses and brain they are filtered through. Even a materialist should get that, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 But if you are dreaming that you are bumping your head in the dark, it might also hurt. Until you wake up. My dreams tend to have great lighting unlike my waking life. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Reductionists just cannot fathom something other than the five senses. I cannot fathom what you mean my "reductionist." You use it over and over and over again but it doesn't seem to mean anything in particular. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Eh....try googling it... You aren't able to tell me what you mean when you use the term? mwc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 BO: All our perceptions of the world are only as good as the senses and brain they are filtered through. Even a materialist should get that, right? If you want to know what a materialist thinks you could always ask one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 I'm currently studying how specific genes code for certain protein channels, specifically Sodium channels at the moment. In some sense this makes me "reductionist." However my colleagues and I absolutely believe in "senses" beyond the standard five that are thrown about. For example, concepts such as proprioception are well established and reasonably well explained. Unfortunately, you can run into significant pitfalls when making sweeping generalisations about people, particularly when you may not actually understand what they really know or believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted September 11, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted September 11, 2013 Okay.That means that...our whole solar system...could be, like...one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.This is too much!That means...one tiny atom in my fingernail could be-Could be one little...tiny universe.Could I buy some pot from you? - Animal House dialog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted September 11, 2013 Author Share Posted September 11, 2013 Unfortunately, you can run into significant pitfalls when making sweeping generalisations about people, particularly when you may not actually understand what they really know or believe. True. And what I've discovered over time is that individuals can and do hold conflicting beliefs and opinions. Doubtful there is an absolute "materialist" or an absolute "idealist" just like there isn't an absolute democrat or republican. Labels are fixed ideas while people are not. And yes, I use sweeping generalizations a lot (one of my faults). :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted September 11, 2013 Share Posted September 11, 2013 Interesting thing isn't it? Somehow though, creationists and theists like to use this as "proof" of their idiotic beliefs. Wouldn't it prove that they don't know if the Bible isn't real? much less God..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 BO: All our perceptions of the world are only as good as the senses and brain they are filtered through. Even a materialist should get that, right? If you want to know what a materialist thinks you could always ask one. Why? You take the same attitude with nonmaterialists. That is a lie. Of course you cannot back up your accusation because it is based on nothing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Oh...let's see...you call non material thinking "MAGICAL THINKING"....and other things that mean less than real. Nope. Another lie. I call only magical thinking by the name "magical thinking". It's very specific and not anything as generalized (or undefined) as "non material". Are you done lying? However even if I were to call all "non material" thinking "Magical thinking" that would not demonstrate that I think I don't have to ask people what is on their mind to already know what is on their mind. Your original lie is still a lie that you can't back up. http://phobias.about.com/od/glossary/g/magicalthinking.htm "Magical thinking is a clinical term used to describe a wide variety of nonscientific and sometimes irrational beliefs. These beliefs are generally centered on correlations between events. For example, a belief in the power of spells or rituals could be considered magical thinking" You see BO it's actually believing in magic and things that are like magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Naw...you're just closed minded and you like to say I'm lying as a way of denial. You didn't back up either accusation you leveled at me. So you level more accusations at me as distraction. Seeing that you are firing blanks could you at least define "nonmaterialists"? Who are these people and what defines them as a group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Naw...you're just closed minded and you like to say I'm lying as a way of denial. You didn't back up either accusation you leveled at me. So you level more accusations at me as distraction. Seeing that you are firing blanks could you at least define "nonmaterialists"? Who are these people and what defines them as a group? More closed mind more denial. A question is neither closed minded nor a denial. Again I ask: Tell us who are these "nonmaterialists" and what defines them as a group? If you can't do this simple thing . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ContraBardus Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Depends on what you mean by real. The argument between BO and Mymistake is not actually really happening. This entire discussion is nothing more than a series of zeros and ones projected creating light patterns on a surface that is either made of partially reflective opaque material made of superheated sand, or a series of very small lights that are each projecting a single color in to create patterns that your eyes interpret as words. For all intents and purposes, this conversation does not actually exist. Yet here it is anyway. Matter is just another state of energy after all, so in a way we're not much different than the words that you're reading on the computer screen. Real is subjective I guess. An individual can't really prove that they actually exist, much less whether everything else does or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 ...It is anybody who can conceive of a level of reality or understanding, conscious or unconscious that goes beyond the realm of of the five senses. BTW....I edited my previous post to add something I forgot to add...so you cannot accuse me of Stealth editing. Hope your happy.... Very funny. So by your definition I am a nonmaterialists. Well now wasn't this a fun little exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 ...It is anybody who can conceive of a level of reality or understanding, conscious or unconscious that goes beyond the realm of of the five senses. BTW....I edited my previous post to add something I forgot to add...so you cannot accuse me of Stealth editing. Hope your happy.... Very funny. So by your definition I am a nonmaterialists. Well now wasn't this a fun little exercise. But you claim it doesn't exist. Where did I do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts