I Am Soul

[breathe]

Tricky

If we both believe in our position, then neither is lying. The definition of a lie is saying something you know is not true. However, it is almost certain that one of us is wrong. How do you determing which one of us is wrong? Evidence. And of course, the person who makes a positive claim (like "there is a god") should be the one to provide evidence for that positive claim.

I was following your earlier argument that truth is the opposite of false and I think many falsehoods could be truths and vice versa depending on interpretation.

 

[articulett]

Um, did you know this was a "skeptics forum" when you signed up here? Clarity of language is important, if not expected.

I think everyone was following Tricky, Foster Zygote, and Wings just fine... probably always have... it's those who think they have so much to teach that nobody is really able to parse.

What the hell are you guys trying to say? What is the point and why should skeptics care?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky

I was following your earlier argument that truth is the opposite of false and I think many falsehoods could be truths and vice versa depending on interpretation.

Real truth doesn't depend on interpretation. It is objective, demonstrable and verifiable. As such, there are few "real truths" in this world, but many "near truths" that are so very well evidenced that they are almost certain. Gravity for one. That things fall down is hardly an "interpretation".

 

[Wings]

Tricky

I was following your earlier argument that truth is the opposite of false and I think many falsehoods could be truths and vice versa depending on interpretation.

Can I possibly get some examples of how truths can be falsehoods, and how falsehoods can be truths by interpretation?

Also, when we use the word truth - are using it to mean fact?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please explain how this is not a direct insult, to what seems to me, like a valid question?

Very well. Informing you that I suspect that you do not understand the discussion in progress based on your responses is not an insult.

Let's go over the argument and some of your responses that lead me to conclude that you are confused.

It has been suggested by Navigator and you, seemingly, that subjective facts are true. An analogy was suggested. In this scenario a person has been accused of a crime that he factually did not commit. However the jury votes to convict him. The jury's "subjective truth" that the accused is guilty is in fact false. In this case "subjective truth" is just another way of describing a falsehood. So we see that truth can influence belief, but belief has no influence over truth. This is the point that Tricky and I have been making.

Now your statements

I think it is quite extreme to imply that "quite often" any group of people are the same. If you believe this is true and I believe it is false...then who is lying........

everyone has a sense of self and everyone is different, hasn't genetics proven that much?

and

Sweeping generalisations are obviously problematic and in this case we are contesting as Tricky states and you follow the 'deluded' accused. Canadians and prisoners?....apples and oranges...

show that you do not understand that Tricky's point was that the person's innocence has nothing to do with anyone's belief. The fact that the person knows he is innocent is not what makes him innocent. If he was somehow convinced that he had committed the crime he would still be objectively innocent.


You also wrote

Again, the truth is what is in question...............and these two quotes show how easily misinterpretation occurs when everyone is bring so many assumptions to the table...

I asked you to indicate what misinterpretations and assumptions were being made. Can you do that?

Further, the accused was found guilty and, he believes in his innocence.

Not only does he believe he is innocent but, because this is a fictional analogy, we can establish the he is innocent.

Yet you are saying, which supports the notion of 'delusion' already suggested in this topic, even if he starts doubting himself , the truth will prevail. When clearly, we already know that it has not based on the assumptions of the group responsible for his sentencing.

No, you have it wrong. No one has stated that. What has been said, quite clearly, is that the truth of the man's innocence is not influenced by his beliefs or by those of the jury. The jury's "objective truth" is false.

Or is it that you know all?

I will not engage in dramatics with you. Either you can respond to the points that have been raised or you can't.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Day 4.

 

[Navigator]

Maybe the better question is "Why is the apple the color it is?"

Anyhoo...

Subjective reality is fact. My point regarding the innocent judged guilty by a group of individuals presented with evidence was to show that it does happen.

Just because it is subjective does not make it false.

~ Fact can influence belief, but belief has no influence over fact. ~

Is that a fact?

The fact that the person knows he is innocent is not what makes him innocent. If he was somehow convinced that he had committed the crime he would still be objectively innocent.

The fact that the person knows he is innocent is what I am calling subjective reality. For the person, that knowledge, the experience, the fact of the matter is what makes him subjectively innocent, regardless of the outside influence claiming the opposite.

If at some other point in time, and outside influence got into his head and through all sorts of verbal manipulations convinced the person he was guilty, then the person has simply allowed himself to be brainwashed, hypnotized…whatever.

I am not sure why u say he would be objectively innocent, because he was objectively judged guilty and objectively convince later of his guilt.

Subjective reality has been sacrificed for objective reality.

The subjective fact has been laid aside for the sake of collective opinion.

The fact that it can happen (no one denies this) points to the fact that it does happen, and that when it comes to throwing away the fact of personal experience for the sake of collective opinion…

...well, the fact is it is the choice of the individual.

 

[Wings]

Subjective reality is fact. My point regarding the innocent judged guilty by a group of individuals presented with evidence was to show that it does happen.

A fact is an objective and verifiable observation. The state of objectivity means that something is independent of the person observing it.

So, how can subjective reality be objective if it is to qualify as a fact?

~ Fact can influence belief, but belief has no influence over fact. ~
Is that a fact?

Sure.

The man was judged to be guilty. That is a fact.
The man believed he was innocent. That is a fact.
The man was innocent because he believed he was. That is not a fact, that is a belief. And it doesn't change that he was judged guilty.

Note that the fact is that he was judged guilty, not that he really was guilty. It is possible for someone to be judged guilty, but be innocent. In that instance, the judgement is in error. it is not "subjectively true" that he was guilty because he was judged guilty.


I can believe that you are a monkey. Honestly and fully believe that you are a monkey. I can believe it with every fiber of my being, and simply be wrong. Not "subjectively right or my belief be true because I believe it completely". My belief on you being a monkey has absolutely no bearing on the fact that you are not a monkey.

Oh how I wish you were a monkey. I'd give you a toy and teach you to do all sorts of tricks. It would be awesome! I'd name you Poko and we'd go to the park and I'd teach you to lift up skirts and harass old men.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

… to go back in time for a reminder:

So when you say: “I am soul”, I think you can use it as an abstract description; as in describing how you think the phenomenal self feels like to you – basically you are describing an abstract property (I am) with another one (soul). On the other hand, if you then go on and infer that this “soul” must therefore be a fundamental property of the universe, like other properties that do not require acknowledgment in order to exist, then I think you’re wrong. Do I know that you must be wrong? Of course not, although I can say that you’re probably wrong.

…present time again, after variable contexts and many posts:

Subjective reality is fact. My point regarding the innocent judged guilty by a group of individuals presented with evidence was to show that it does happen.

Just because it is subjective does not make it false.

But here’s the thing: Even though subjective experience can be perceived as a true (and that being a fact), it does not however mean it is true “outside” the subjective narrative where it’s presented in. Subjective truths need only to be true in the same way as Londo Mollari had Lord Refa killed… it’s true, but only in a narrative sense. If you take such a narrative truth to also be true regardless of narrative, then better have some evidence ready, something that’s not only confined to your own subjective storyline, something we can share and assess via many storylines.

Subjective reality has been sacrificed for objective reality.

I take it that you mean this to be a more general note than simply in regards to the discussed example here, yes? If subjective reality is perceived as scarified, it’s usually a sign that it shouldn’t have been confused with objective reality in the first place. If subjective reality is a translation of the objective reality in a metaphorical sense, then discussion can continue.

Now, in the beginning you said that since the universe obviously started, it is proof that consciousness would be that first cause, especially since for something to exists, you asserted, there must be something acknowledging it to exist; although something that acknowledges itself does not need anything else to acknowledge its own existence (i.e., many claims were made to be true in the objective sense). Now you retracted much of those assertions, albeit it’s still unclear if you by “I am Soul” mean it to be true in any other sense than in the metaphorical one (or as Kopji alluded to: ‘artistically’ and ‘aesthetically’). If that is the case, then what does “Soul” here stand for in the inter-subjective sense, according to you? We can forget about any claims where the “Soul” is claimed to exist as an objective entity – unless you claim that to be the case of course – and look at what you’re actually talking about.

It seem to me, that it's quite important for your subjective experience that subjective reality is to be believed as also being part of the objective reality, in an unchanged form.

 

[Navigator]

A fact is an objective and verifiable observation. The state of objectivity means that something is independent of the person observing it.

So, how can subjective reality be objective if it is to qualify as a fact?

You seem to be declaring that there are no such realities as subjective facts, that are subjectively variable to the one experiencing the reality.

The man was judged to be guilty. That is a fact.

Without question – I did not suggest otherwise.

The man believed he was innocent. That is a fact.

Nope. The accused KNEW ‘he’ was innocent. That is the fact.

I can believe that you are a monkey.

Your reasoning has drifted.
First you change the situation presented, from the man KNEW he was innocent, to the man ‘believed’ he was innocent.
In this way you could meander away from the point I am making.
No one NEEDS verification of their own life’s experience, or for that matter, any part of the whole experience, from an outside objective (other people/groups) in order to factually KNOW their own experience as being fact.





But here’s the thing: Even though subjective experience can be perceived as a true (and that being a fact), it does not however mean it is true “outside” the subjective narrative where it’s presented in. Subjective truths need only to be true in the same way as Londo Mollari had Lord Refa killed… it’s true, but only in a narrative sense. If you take such a narrative truth to also be true regardless of narrative, then better have some evidence ready, something that’s not only confined to your own subjective storyline, something we can share and assess via many storylines.

This is correct. It is also a reason to be in this forum. It is one thing to blah on about whatever you might have in common with others, but another to present it to those who don’t have those things in common.
But I have already said as much –

…Nor would I argue that, for example, you are soul if you don’t experience that for yourself. I would agree with you that you think you are soulless, and understand through your explanation why you think this is the case. It is my assumption that you are soul, but I realize that I am not talking to the you are that I think you are, I am talking with the you are that you think you are

This is not to say that I am sorry I inferred as much about anyone who knows for a fact that they are NOT soul.
I am saying I accept that. Everyone has their proven reasons for knowing what they do about themselves.

Subjective reality has been sacrificed for objective reality.

I take it that you mean this to be a more general note than simply in regards to the discussed example here, yes? If subjective reality is perceived as scarified, it’s usually a sign that it shouldn’t have been confused with objective reality in the first place. If subjective reality is a translation of the objective reality in a metaphorical sense, then discussion can continue.

I am saying that if an individual wants to submit to (as the example was given) accept guilt on the premise of what he has been persuaded to believe about himself by others, even though he KNOWS that he is innocent, then that is his choice but does not change the fact that he is innocent (of the original accusation)

In doing so he is lying.

It seem to me, that it's quite important for your subjective experience that subjective reality is to be believed as also being part of the objective reality, in an unchanged form.

Now, in the beginning you said that since the universe obviously started, it is proof that consciousness would be that first cause, especially since for something to exists, you asserted, there must be something acknowledging it to exist; although something that acknowledges itself does not need anything else to acknowledge its own existence (i.e., many claims were made to be true in the objective sense). Now you retracted much of those assertions, albeit it’s still unclear if you by “I am Soul” mean it to be true in any other sense than in the metaphorical one (or as Kopji alluded to: ‘artistically’ and ‘aesthetically’). If that is the case, then what does “Soul” here stand for in the inter-subjective sense, according to you? We can forget about any claims where the “Soul” is claimed to exist as an objective entity – unless you claim that to be the case of course – and look at what you’re actually talking about.

As we have progressed through this thread I have learned how some (I won’t presume all) skeptics think about such claims as I have made.
I have learned that most naming words are abstracts, and that language is hard tool to use for the purpose of communication because of the way different words are understood and mis-understood.
This in turn allowed me to realize that there are some subjective experiences which cannot be verified by anyone NOT having that experience.
These mostly have to do with what the skeptic fraternity label as ‘Wooish’

I have also learned – or have had reinforced something already observed – as to how presumptuous we all can be.

I have seen how everything can be explained hypothetically by the evidence of the recognized senses.

And still I am able to say “I Am Soul” (for want of a better word) but I will use it anyway.

I KNOW I have separated from my human instrument and the experience was real. Different. But real.
I KNOW that my experience is not able to be verified by anyone else.

I admit freely and without reservation that I presume or otherwise hypothesize that
I base what I KNOW to signify that it must be true of all others, irregardless of whether they have experienced such for themselves.

 

[Navigator]

It seem to me, that it's quite important for your subjective experience that subjective reality is to be believed as also being part of the objective reality, in an unchanged form.

Nope. It is not important for my subjective experience to be believed by you, or anyone else.

 

[Wings]

A fact is an objective and verifiable observation. The state of objectivity means that something is independent of the person observing it.

So, how can subjective reality be objective if it is to qualify as a fact?

You seem to be declaring that there are no such realities as subjective facts, that are subjectively variable to the one experiencing the reality.

Yes, because the term subjective fact is an oxymoron.

The man was judged to be guilty. That is a fact.

Without question – I did not suggest otherwise.

Okay.

The man believed he was innocent. That is a fact.

Nope. The accused KNEW ‘he’ was innocent. That is the fact.

Well, the word know has the meaning in the dictionary of meaning "o be certain or sure about.", this is the definition I was going by. In that sense, I could have just said "The accused was sure he was innocent." if this was the definition you were using.

If so, it doesn't mess with my argument one bit. If not, please speak up on which definition you were using then we can go from there.

I can believe that you are a monkey.

Your reasoning has drifted.
First you change the situation presented, from the man KNEW he was innocent, to the man ‘believed’ he was innocent.
In this way you could meander away from the point I am making.
No one NEEDS verification of their own life’s experience, or for that matter, any part of the whole experience, from an outside objective (other people/groups) in order to factually KNOW their own experience as being fact.

A fact does not HAVE to be verified by others to be true, but it has to be possible to do so for it to be a fact. It is a fact that you exist, even if no one knew you existed, your existence would still be a fact.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It seem to me, that it's quite important for your subjective experience that subjective reality is to be believed as also being part of the objective reality, in an unchanged form.

Nope. It is not important for my subjective experience to be believed by you, or anyone else.

I should have been clearer about what I meant: I didn’t so much assume you needed confirmation form anyone else as I meant that it seems to be quite important for you to interpret that subjective experience as also being objectively true, unchanged, and not to be mistaken as being subjugated to (or deflated with) metaphorical thinking, by yourself.

I KNOW I have separated from my human instrument and the experience was real. Different. But real.
I KNOW that my experience is not able to be verified by anyone else.

I admit freely and without reservation that I presume or otherwise hypothesize that
I base what I KNOW to signify that it must be true of all others, irregardless of whether they have experienced such for themselves.

And here’s the confirmation for the allusion I was making: For you to make sense of the experience, the only way possible for you to achieve this, it seems, is by equating subjective experience with objective truth, and furthermore, by equating belief with knowledge – thus you say you ‘know’ rather than that you ‘believe’. And herein rests the core of the communicative problem of course: denying any room for interpretation of the experience.

Nevertheless, it’s also true that we have also people who have experienced states of non-duality: that is, where there hasn’t been any sense of limited selfhood present; experiencing without anyone having the experience. They would equally submit it as ‘knowing’ it to be true (rather than ‘believing’) that: In actuality, there isn’t anyone to have the experience being outside their body, because there cannot be ownership involved at the most fundamental level of reality. Hence, it would implicitly also mean that OBEs are only true in the subjective narrative sense, but not outside that narrative (not in the most fundamental sense of reality).

 

[Nick227]

In actuality, there isn’t anyone to have the experience being outside their body, because there cannot be ownership involved at the most fundamental level of reality. Hence, it would implicitly also mean that OBEs are only true in the subjective narrative sense, but not outside that narrative (not in the most fundamental sense of reality).

If I'm reading you right, then what you are saying would apply equally whether one experiences oneself as inside one's body or outside of it. If we say that non-duality is the "fundamental level," then the experience of objectivity would be equally as abstract as OOBEs, would it not?

Nick

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

If I'm reading you right, then what you are saying would apply equally whether one experiences oneself as inside one's body or outside of it. If we say that non-duality is the "fundamental level," then the experience of objectivity would be equally as abstract as OOBEs, would it not?

Only if we take non-duality to be the "fundamental level" of existence, and thus interpret that such an experience is, in fact, a direct expression of that "truth" (and not a fabrication). It is also possible, as for instance Navigator here seems to do, to see the world in a dualistic light where the body is a vehicle for the "Soul", but where there’s immaterial identity at the core nonetheless; that it was he that was outside his body, thus consequently saying we are all spiritual entities with identity (a claim that applies outside the narrative it was first presented in).

I’m simply contrasting the view of a fundamental experience where identity plays a pivotal role with another fundamental experience where loss of identity is the pivotal factor.

 

[Nick227]

It is also possible, as for instance Navigator here seems to do, to see the world in a dualistic light where the body is a vehicle for the "Soul", but where there’s immaterial identity at the core nonetheless; that it was he that was outside his body, thus consequently saying we are all spiritual entities with identity (a claim that applies outside the narrative it was first presented in).

So it is that one is identified with some immaterial or atemporal aspect of the self, rather than the physical body?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Only if we take non-duality to be the "fundamental level" of existence, and thus interpret that such an experience is, in fact, a direct expression of that "truth" (and not a fabrication).

Yes, one can also take the materialist viewpoint that the experience of limited selfhood arises as a result of some natural brain function and thus should be declared a priori to non-duality. I don't like it so much but I guess it's also valid.

Nick

 

[Paulhoff]

The point of this is that the religious point of view is to take it on faith, there is no need to investigate for all the reasons why the apple is red.

But for the skeptic who looks for reasons finds, pigments in the skin of the apple, the different frequencies of light, how the eye has cones that are sensitive to different frequencies of light, how the brain itself interprets the information from the eyes, that even though light has different frequencies, the color red is the interpretation by the brain of the information that it gets from the eye. Also the farmers have been breeding for that shade of red and most likely that may not have been the original color of apples. The list is longer then this of course, but it is not a short and simple answer, “Because it is Red”.

Paul



or "God made it that way"

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

So it is that one is identified with some immaterial or atemporal aspect of the self, rather than the physical body?

Not only that (that’s obviously part of an OBE), but that this identification with an ‘immaterial or atemporal aspect of the self’ is the core argument for absolute and certain ‘knowledge’ about the world. I.e., the asserting stems from a subjective experience and is then tried as an objective truth, but it just doesn’t seem to be a universal fit regardless of how much elasticity there’s in the fabric – yet it’s claimed to be ‘knowledge’ rather than ‘belief’ and ‘truth’ rather than ‘interpretation’.

 

[Paulhoff]

Yes, one can also take the materialist viewpoint that the experience of limited selfhood arises as a result of some natural brain function and thus should be declared a priori to non-duality. I don't like it so much but I guess it's also valid.

Nick

The universe doesn't like or dislike anything, it just is. So something being valid has nothing to do with "like".

Paul



But brains on the other hand..............