TrueScotsman

The Discovery of Objective Reality Was the Death of God

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, TrueScotsman said:

Do you think spirituality is incompatible with a naturalistic understanding of the brain?  If the brain is indeed naturalistic, but your spiritual experiences are real phenomonologically, what is the difference?  I think people can be spiritual atheists, I meditate regularly and have had experiences similar to when I was religious, though usually of sounder mind and less caught up in cognition.

 

I think people tend to hold a mishmash of different conflicting or seemingly conflicting ideas. Spirituality doesn't require adherence to any specific rule set. So, sure someone could be spiritual and also have a naturalistic understanding of the brain. Consciousness is like the last frontier. I find it fascinating. Maybe it's all caused by the brain. Maybe it isn't. I don't think we've heard the last word on it from science, though.

 

My preference is to think that consciousness is primary, and this idea is backed up by several post materialist physicists and scientists... but materialists of course dismiss their ideas as bullshit. After all, there's no physical evidence of the non-physical, right? Therefore it can't exist? It's like someone demanding that the designer of an electric car show them where the gas tank is on the blueprint. Cars MUST have a gas tank, right? What kind of bullshit is Elon Musk trying to pull here ? 

 

One could also consider the spiritual to be naturalistic.

 

I'm aware of pagan atheists. Some of them believe that witchcraft is a real thing, some just hold nature in high regard. Yet, they don't believe in God.

 

Here's a question: Are people who believe differently than you, irrational? Are religious people irrational? Can someone be irrational and still enjoy life and function well? Sorry, that was three questions. Glad to hear you meditate. I tried that. Couldn't handle it. lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


PLEASE EXCUSE THE ANNOYING COMMERCIAL BREAKS IN THE CONVERSATION:

As with everything these days, the cost of keeping the Ex-C forum up and running has been rising. Inflation? In part, but the primary reason is this: As participation in the forums grows, costs increase. The Ex-C forums will remain free of charge to everyone, but if you believe this little corner of the Internet provides value to you or others, and you feel inclined to help keep us online, please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a regular contributor. Contribution options appear under the "Upgrade" link above, and can be accessed by clicking here.

Oh, and as an incentive (no, you won't be given any bogus promises of eternal bliss), if you do become a regular contributor by signing up for any monthly or yearly patron package, this annoying ADVO will disappear.

And now, back to the regularly scheduled conversation...



1 minute ago, TrueScotsman said:

What do you mean by scale here?

Just saying that if time is standardized by something "larger" to us, then this should not negate our ability to define time with something "smaller" to us, i.e. "neuro-time".  Reality would be expressed relative to the standardization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I think people tend to hold a mishmash of different conflicting or seemingly conflicting ideas. Spirituality doesn't require adherence to any specific rule set. So, sure someone could be spiritual and also have a naturalistic understanding of the brain. Consciousness is like the last frontier. I find it fascinating. Maybe it's all caused by the brain. Maybe it isn't. I don't think we've heard the last word on it from science, though.

 

My preference is to think that consciousness is primary, and this idea is backed up by several post materialist physicists and scientists... but materialists of course dismiss their ideas as bullshit. After all, there's no physical evidence of the non-physical, right? Therefore it can't exist? It's like someone demanding that the designer of an electric car show them where the gas tank is on the blueprint. Cars MUST have a gas tank, right? What kind of bullshit is Elon Musk trying to pull here ? 

 

One could also consider the spiritual to be naturalistic.

 

I'm aware of pagan atheists. Some of them believe that witchcraft is a real thing, some just hold nature in high regard. Yet, they don't believe in God.

 

Here's a question: Are people who believe differently than you, irrational? Are religious people irrational? Can someone be irrational and still enjoy life and function well? Sorry, that was three questions. Glad to hear you meditate. I tried that. Couldn't handle it. lol.

People who base their lives on something that has insufficient evidence I would sadly say, is irrational in my book.  Religious people absolutely depart from rationality in subscribing to their special revelation contained in their historical canons.  People can of course function very well in such belief systems and enjoy life, we are evolutionary desogned for tribalism not rationality, being aware of human irrationality especially in yourself is one of the most important means of overcoming it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, end3 said:

Just saying that if time is standardized by something "larger" to us, then this should not negate our ability to define time with something "smaller" to us, i.e. "neuro-time".  Reality would be expressed relative to the standardization.

Neuro-time is not an aspect of objective reality, time is actually something in the universe, indeed part of the essential fabric of the universe.  Our internal subjective experience of it is utility based to help maximize our chances at survival in certain scenarios, nothing external is being impacted by such.  We don't apprehend reality with our senses alone, we see a vision of the world created and biased by evolution.  Which is why the introduction of scientific methods and instruments was truly the discovery of objective reality as it could be verified irrespective of your subjective vantage point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

Neuro-time is not an aspect of objective reality, time is actually something in the universe, indeed part of the essential fabric of the universe.  Our internal subjective experience of it is utility based to help maximize our chances at survival in certain scenarios, nothing external is being impacted by such.  We don't apprehend reality with our senses alone, we see a vision of the world created and biased by evolution.  Which is why the introduction of scientific methods and instruments was truly the discovery of objective reality as it could be verified irrespective of your subjective vantage point.

We are about to diverge in opinion for a couple of reasons.  One, in order to keep time, we must place it outside of our subjectivity.  You then say that it part of the universe and place it as some universal constant.  How can make time universal unless you standardize time to the universe itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, end3 said:

We are about to diverge in opinion for a couple of reasons.  One, in order to keep time, we must place it outside of our subjectivity.  You then say that it part of the universe and place it as some universal constant.  How can make time universal unless you standardize time to the universe itself?

Spacetime is a singular fabric, it is not just something we pragmatically standardize, it literally gets warped by gravitational forces.  Time is that sense totally relative, as it is not the same time everywhere.  If you had a twin who traveled on a space ship at the speed of light away from the earth for a couple decades and came back, he would be perhaps a whole decade younger than you due to the impact of the velocity on Spacetime, which is called time dilation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

Spacetime is a singular fabric, it is not just something we pragmatically standardize, it literally gets warped by gravitational forces.  Time is that sense totally relative, as it is not the same time everywhere.  If you had a twin who traveled on a space ship at the speed of light away from the earth for a couple decades and came back, he would be perhaps a whole decade younger than you due to the impact of the velocity on Spacetime, which is called time dilation.  

In other words, reality and time are warped depending on matter, volume, and proximity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, end3 said:

In other words, reality and time are warped depending on matter, volume, and proximity.

 

 

More appropriately, Spacetime is warped due to its geodesic structure by gravity and velocity.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long story short TS, the fact that we are subject to the universe and don't understand to boot, points to a larger something, not the death of that something.  Also, it's the ego....just because we have things the are subject to us, and that our understanding is increasing, does not give us much, rather it gives us prideful arrogance on occasion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, end3 said:

Long story short TS, the fact that we are subject to the universe and don't understand to boot, points to a larger something, not the death of that something.  Also, it's the ego....just because we have things the are subject to us, and that our understanding is increasing, does not give us much, rather it gives us prideful arrogance on occasion.  

 

It is a real shame that you don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

It is a real shame that you don't understand.

I noticed you didn't join in the discussion yesterday after it became a little more difficult....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, end3 said:

Long story short TS, the fact that we are subject to the universe and don't understand to boot, points to a larger something, not the death of that something.  Also, it's the ego....just because we have things the are subject to us, and that our understanding is increasing, does not give us much, rather it gives us prideful arrogance on occasion.  

It points only to an objective reality, namely this universe we live in.  Unless you want to provide evidence of a god existing, then your interpretation of the data we do have would otherwise be inappropriate.

 

Whatever arrogance we have now, we at least have left so much of it behind us.  Do you think we were humble when all we had was religion to help us understand the world?  No, I will continue to say it is not arrogant one bit to speak in such a way that is supported by the evidence, and that to depart from that manner of speaking is indeed the height of arrogance, given the fact that we entered this world ignorant and have only in modern times began to unravel the mysteries of the universe.  Which we already know an incredible amount, and none of what we have learned lends credence to the Christian religion I'm afraid.  That will always be a leap of faith, independent of reason, and to reject that is to be in denial of its actual nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TrueScotsman said:

It points only to an objective reality, namely this universe we live in.  Unless you want to provide evidence of a god existing, then your interpretation of the data we do have would otherwise be inappropriate.

 

Whatever arrogance we have now, we at least have left so much of it behind us.  Do you think we were humble when all we had was religion to help us understand the world?  No, I will continue to say it is not arrogant one bit to speak in such a way that is supported by the evidence, and that to depart from that manner of speaking is indeed the height of arrogance, given the fact that we entered this world ignorant and have only in modern times began to unravel the mysteries of the universe.  Which we already know an incredible amount, and none of what we have learned lends credence to the Christian religion I'm afraid.  That will always be a leap of faith, independent of reason, and to reject that is to be in denial of its actual nature.

An analogous view would be the objective reality is essentially God, is it not.....omniscience, knowing, certainty, etc.  But it still remains that we are subject and will always be subject to even objective reality.  I believe to understand your point, but even the Bible warns us of the potential of man and the errors of man.  But sir, I actually enjoyed the discussion. Thank you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, end3 said:

An analogous view would be the objective reality is essentially God, is it not.....omniscience, knowing, certainty, etc.  But it still remains that we are subject and will always be subject to even objective reality.  I believe to understand your point, but even the Bible warns us of the potential of man and the errors of man.  But sir, I actually enjoyed the discussion. Thank you.

 

 

Your welcome, glad you gave it a chance.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, end3 said:

I noticed you didn't join in the discussion yesterday after it became a little more difficult....

 

You keep saying that 1 + 1 = 32  or that 1 + 1 = 728.

 

I remind you that 1 + 1 = 2

 

And then you reject that to assert that 1 + 1 = 4,811.

 

Is it really a discussion?  You use all the terms wrong.  Then you try to add them together in ways they don't fit.  Words have meaning.  They are not toys for you to make up the meaning as you go along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mymistake said:

 

You keep saying that 1 + 1 = 32  or that 1 + 1 = 728.

 

I remind you that 1 + 1 = 2

 

And then you reject that to assert that 1 + 1 = 4,811.

 

Is it really a discussion?  You use all the terms wrong.  Then you try to add them together in ways they don't fit.  Words have meaning.  They are not toys for you to make up the meaning as you go along.

No, MM, in this case, you are not applying or tying the ideas together on a larger scale.  Let me go get the other post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 9:34 AM, mymistake said:

 

 

That is not how it works.

 

Objective = existing without regard to personal feelings or opinion.  It's there and it's real.  It doesn't matter what we think about objective reality.

 

Subjective = the way we perceive something

 

Dynamic = constantly changing

 

Fact =  that which is true and can be verifed

 

Certainty of measurement = how accurately we can measure something

 

Our reality = what somebody wishes was true (rather than what is actually true).

 

 

Learn what the words mean before you try to cram them into a sentence.  Objective reality can't become more real or more factual.  There is no improving on 100%.  Math doesn't stop change.  We call something a fact if we know it is true.  Certainty of measurement is part of the known facts rather than competing against fact.  Objective reality changing in time does not make it subjective.  You are using almost every term the wrong way.

 

 

Let's take this to your level MM.  Before you were born, did you realize objective reality.  Yes or no please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, end3 said:

Before you were born, did you realize objective reality.  Yes or no please

 

No, I did not understand the concept until I was an adult.  I don't remember the exact time but it was after high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, end3 said:

Let's take this to your level MM.  Before you were born, did you realize objective reality.  Yes or no please

It should be noted that subjectively we do not understand objective reality just by viewing it.  Science provide the objective tools which go far beyond just what we can see or intuitively understand to test our hypotheses.  Each of us are thrust into the world ignorant, and only in the modern world has there been access to accurate information about the universe.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so we are not self aware before we are born then we are subject to the forces that created our lives and consciousness.  This  means we are subjects.  The things we endeavor in will be forevermore subjective.    Heck MM, you just called it a concept.  I’ll listen... please give me scientific proof of “fact”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, end3 said:

Ok so we are not self aware before we are born then we are subject to the forces that created our lives and consciousness.  This  means we are subjects.  The things we endeavor in will be forevermore subjective.    Heck MM, you just called it a concept.  I’ll listen... please give me scientific proof of “fact”.

Science can prove many things objectively, when something can be demonstrated objectively to many subjects, it is called a fact.  Your blood transports oxygen to your organs and extremities.  We cannot as subjects see oxygen nor see it in the liquid blood, but we can use several objective methods of studying the molecular makeup of blood to see this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueScotsman said:

Science can prove many things objectively, when something can be demonstrated objectively to many subjects, it is called a fact.  Your blood transports oxygen to your organs and extremities.  We cannot as subjects see oxygen nor see it in the liquid blood, but we can use several objective methods of studying the molecular makeup of blood to see this is the case.

The supposition is that fact is based on objective reality.  Thus far you have only said that science points to such.  I do however understand that in a very loose sense, "fact" is thrown around as an absolute.  This is not the conversation I am describing and I think you know that already given our discussion yesterday....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, end3 said:

Ok so we are not self aware before we are born then we are subject to the forces that created our lives and consciousness.  This  means we are subjects.  The things we endeavor in will be forevermore subjective.    Heck MM, you just called it a concept.  I’ll listen... please give me scientific proof of “fact”.

 

You are asking me to prove what fact means?  It's a definition.  Read it in the dictionary.  Scientists don't bother proving basic concepts.  They don't bother proving that the color blue is not alive.  The stuff you are saying in this thread is crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mymistake said:

 

You are asking me to prove what fact means?  It's a definition.  Read it in the dictionary.  Scientists don't bother proving basic concepts.  They don't bother proving that the color blue is not alive.  The stuff you are saying in this thread is crazy.

The one that needs to read is you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me explain my side so maybe you will better understand.  Scientific fact, as I understand it, is a term where we call something "fact" because of the high certainty.  We are able to demonstrate objectively...in a very loose sense. 

 

The point I am making MM, is that the "objective" material and the "objective" testers/observers are themselves dynamic in nature.  If you look at your shoe, there are billions of things happening to your shoe as you just sit there.....molecular collisions, etc.  Same for you.  So the point is when we talk objective reality, I don't know that there is a decent way to really pin this down because you can't stop the dynamics.  Then you get into time....i.e. snapshots of those halted molecular collisions stacked on top of themselves to form a picture of objective reality.  And given what TS and his lecture guy were saying, the complexity is so great, they can't really track it backwards or forwards......and rates of the dynamic natures that may be causing differences in "time". 

 

It's not crazy, it's reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now