Notions of universal delusion to explain everything you cannot accept or comprehend is an unsupportable presumption: A kind of delusion.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Notions of universal delusion to explain everything you cannot accept or comprehend is an unsupportable presumption: A kind of delusion.
The possibility of objectivity arises as a by product of the experience of limited selfhood. This creates the experience of there being a subject-object divide, and from this one may make objective statements. However, the experience of limited selfhood has not yet been tracked in the brain, meaning neurologists are trying to work out where it comes from but they haven't got there yet. This is important because if you're a materialist and objective you need to be able to demonstrate a process that creates this experience, otherwise you're stuck with objectivity itself being essentially entirely subjective.
Non-duality negates the experience of having a personal identity - a sense of limited selfhood, a personal "I." One might still say that this experience is an aspect of non-duality, or that it arises in non-duality, but the notion of limited selfhood is still a priori non-real. It is a construct.
If there's no limited selfhood, there's no subject-object divide, everything is simply happening. No subject-object divide and there's no objectivity. Non-duality means you cannot have an isolated point of observation. There's no place outside of the system from which to make an objective assertion. Objectivity becomes meaningless in such a system. The best you can do is say that the experience of objectivity allows us to make stuff.
Nick
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yes... Nick... clarify... no one but you seems to be understanding what you are saying. How are you defining objectivity and how are you understanding things differently? And while your at it, why don't you explain what your sig line means to you in terms that we might all be able to understand using words as they are commonly understood. Do you believe that consciousness of some sort can exist separate from a brain that generates it... absent a material brain?
You criticize us JREFers who don't understand you or supposedly bore you... but you haven't really been very successful at making yourself understood. Like Navigator, you seem to have a lot of beliefs and ideas that you "believe strongly in"-- but whatever they are, they are coming out as garble and insults of "objectivity". If what you are saying cannot be made more clear than what Tom Cruise is saying or Navigator is saying, then is it really our fault if we find you as incomprehensible as them? Can you sum up what those guys are saying? Can you sum up what your point is? Can we hear some substance rather than all the ways those that don't "buy into" your communications are afraid and boring and addicted to objectivity?
We already understand all the ways you think people suck for not treating your claims and beliefs as seriously as you do. Part of it may because we can't understand what the hell you are actually saying. Part of it may be because you aren't saying anything while imagining you are (as Tom Cruise appears to be doing in his clip). The only way we can know your point is if you use regular language to lay it down.
You criticize us JREFers who don't understand you or supposedly bore you... but you haven't really been very successful at making yourself understood. Like Navigator, you seem to have a lot of beliefs and ideas that you "believe strongly in"-- but whatever they are, they are coming out as garble and insults of "objectivity". If what you are saying cannot be made more clear than what Tom Cruise is saying or Navigator is saying, then is it really our fault if we find you as incomprehensible as them? Can you sum up what those guys are saying? Can you sum up what your point is? Can we hear some substance rather than all the ways those that don't "buy into" your communications are afraid and boring and addicted to objectivity?
We already understand all the ways you think people suck for not treating your claims and beliefs as seriously as you do. Part of it may because we can't understand what the hell you are actually saying. Part of it may be because you aren't saying anything while imagining you are (as Tom Cruise appears to be doing in his clip). The only way we can know your point is if you use regular language to lay it down.
If you read the article on non-dualism in Wikipedia, which was linked a couple of posts ago, this will give you a basic grounding. I wouldn't personally agree with all of it, and it's a bit long and complex-looking in places but like I say I think it gives a basic grounding.
If you follow it you can grasp the essence of the issue.
Nick
Tricky
Briefly immortal
So essentially, non-dualism proposes that there is no such thing as an individual self, that it is just an illusion? And therefore there is nothing besides this universal mind, so nothing to have "objective" viewpoints that differ from that of the universal mind? Am I summarizing correctly?
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
But the way we have come to best understand out world and ourselves is through objective means. We understand our planet and our universe and math and evolution and DNA as being objective pieces of evidence. They don't depend on someone's believing in them to exist. They were "true" even before humans interpreted or gave meaning to the terms and concepts and that truth and objectivity will not change when humans no longer exist. DNA will still exist or have existed... humans have no reason to treat misperceptions or illusions as reality if they can help it. Perceiving the world is flat is useful as a human... it's a subjective view... objectively our earth isn't flat... and understanding this helps us learn more and make less mistakes about objective reality. Objectivity works to amass evidence and further knowledge... it's gleanings can be shared with others. Feelings or beliefs that you can leave your body doesn't mean that you can or have just as seeing someone saw a woman in half on stage doesn't mean the woman was sawed in half. Following your subjective interpretations and perceptions can lead you astray far quicker than objectivity and the scientific method. If you don't care whether what you believe is true or not and you are just in it for the experience or transcendent feelings it gives you-- then by all means... follow your "subjective truth" wherever you want. But to expect others to accept it as objectively true because you do... is egotistical and even a little solipsistic.
Believing that you make sense to someone other than yourself doesn't make it so. Just as believing that you have had an out of body experience doesn't make it so. Human interpretation of objective evidence is "subjective"... but it doesn't stop the evidence from being objective, testable, and useful as a tool for understanding more about the truth that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe. The earth is spherical... no matter how much anyone really truly believes it's flat in their head.
Beliefs may create subjective reality-- they don't create objective reality. People can use their beliefs as tools to modify objective reality... but believing something does not or cannot make something so. Wanting something to be true or believing it is possible... doesn't make it so either. If something is true or possible, my disbelief in it does not change the truth or the possibility just as not believing that machines can fly doesn't negate airplanes.
Believing that you make sense to someone other than yourself doesn't make it so. Just as believing that you have had an out of body experience doesn't make it so. Human interpretation of objective evidence is "subjective"... but it doesn't stop the evidence from being objective, testable, and useful as a tool for understanding more about the truth that is the same for everyone no matter what they believe. The earth is spherical... no matter how much anyone really truly believes it's flat in their head.
Beliefs may create subjective reality-- they don't create objective reality. People can use their beliefs as tools to modify objective reality... but believing something does not or cannot make something so. Wanting something to be true or believing it is possible... doesn't make it so either. If something is true or possible, my disbelief in it does not change the truth or the possibility just as not believing that machines can fly doesn't negate airplanes.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Oh yeah... I'm familiar with this line of thinking... brains are filters for this universal consciousness just like lungs are filters for air and kidneys are filters for water.
But it's wrong, because brains are interpretors of sensory input for the bodies that possess them... there is no consciousness out there to filter... our interpretation IS the consciousness. Our material bodies filter materials... react to physical measurable phenomena... not immeasurable imagined forms of consciousness... you can't disprove this brand of non-dualism, but it relies on this idea that consciousness can exist absent a material brain --and all accumulating evidence clearly indicates that consciousness is a product of a living material brain... not an invisible immeasurable "thing" filtered by the brain.
In some ways it's like the internet as the brain of consciousness... and we tap in to it... but the internet like human knowledge and brains and cities and language is an emergent phenomenon built from the bottom up... just like "collective consciousness"... It's not something that was there that we "tap into".
In some ways it's poetic... we are born into a world in progress and try to figure out where we are and why we are here and where the world is going and then we die out... but we were always part of "the world in progress"-- we always play a role in what evolves... the collective consciousness of what humans understand and know... we can't help but play a role... but this it's all "bottom up"--an emergent property unfolding over time... and Nick's "non-dualism" is a "top down" sort of theory. I chewed it over at one time. But it has no explanatory power for what we observe... materialism does.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Brains evolve to respond to and be programmed by sensory input in the environment.
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=61485 Languages evolved... and brains are adapted to learn the communication and rules of it's culture... it's all bottom up when it comes to the things that make up consciousness...it's all built upon what came before... It's not like all languages existed and humans are tapping into them which is what Nicks non-dualism would suggest...
Brains are not like lungs which evolved to take oxygen from the environment and convert it to a form used by the body. Brains are consciousness-makers and evolvers--not filters for some pre-made consciousness.
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=61485 Languages evolved... and brains are adapted to learn the communication and rules of it's culture... it's all bottom up when it comes to the things that make up consciousness...it's all built upon what came before... It's not like all languages existed and humans are tapping into them which is what Nicks non-dualism would suggest...
Brains are not like lungs which evolved to take oxygen from the environment and convert it to a form used by the body. Brains are consciousness-makers and evolvers--not filters for some pre-made consciousness.
That sounds scary Tricky
I think its about realising the vastness of what we face and in turn allowing a deeper understanding of one's unique capacity in the milieu to evolve. Eventually, furthering awareness of the subject matter that most occupies ones time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
My brain thinks all your brains words are a way for your brain to keep from understanding your brain may be tricking your brain. Your brain spins your brains own view -- "subjective truths". It's your brains story. Your brain wants to see my brain as hostile so your brain doesn’t have to examine whether your brain came here speaking as though your brain thought your brain as some prophet of wisdom and got made when our brains didn't accept your brains OBE's as being as real as your brain is convinced they are. Your brain doesn’t want to see if it may have been an illusion. So your brain put down others who suggest that. And why not... your brain has no evidence. It's easier to see the faults in other brains than to listen to what other brains say and have your brains important view of itself as "wise being" thrown into question.
You aren't fooling any brains except your brain with your brains inner dialogue. Your brain came here to "preach" and are because our brains didn't find your brain as prophetic and enlightening as your brain imagine itself.
Rest assured, your brains opinions of my brain matter as little to my brain as the opinions and experiences of others brains matters to your brain.
Uh haha
My brain thinks my brains analysis of your brain is more honest as far as the evidence goes.
My brain made comment based on the facts laid down by your brains posts.
Your brains analysis actually throws the facts out the window and claims things that are not in evidence according to what my brain has posted.
Your brain, in regards to my brain – is delusional about my brain.http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon7.gif
You aren't fooling any brains except your brain with your brains inner dialogue. Your brain came here to "preach" and are because our brains didn't find your brain as prophetic and enlightening as your brain imagine itself.
Rest assured, your brains opinions of my brain matter as little to my brain as the opinions and experiences of others brains matters to your brain.
Uh haha
My brain thinks my brains analysis of your brain is more honest as far as the evidence goes.
My brain made comment based on the facts laid down by your brains posts.
Your brains analysis actually throws the facts out the window and claims things that are not in evidence according to what my brain has posted.
Your brain, in regards to my brain – is delusional about my brain.http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/icons/icon7.gif
HghrSymmetry
View clearer from above.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 19,975
Now would seem an apropos time for I. Ian to pop in. This strain of "discussion" would be right up its alley.
HghrSymmetry
View clearer from above.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 19,975
Well said.
Navigator, you want to see god at work have a look at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3540625#post3540625
I have just told another couple of believers to have a look at this one. These god-fearing people have a link with god and he has given them special powers. They even have their own ministry.
They can see inside your brain and tell you exactly what is in there. (cheap at half the price).
Your belief is different, how?
Ahh believers doing the lord's work.
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
PBTree
This seems to be the post of the link you posted.
Is this correct?
If so, and since you posted this link to me, where in my posts do I call myself anything, let alone a 'Christian"?
You know, there have been a few folk posting in this thread, going on about others who post opinions lacking evidence, while completely missing the fact that they themselves offer opinions and assertions without evidence.
It does interest me when others make such a song and dance but fail to see (must be a brain trick thing yes?) that they do the same thing they accuse others of doing.
I'm not one of those who cares whether individuals offer subjective pov without evidence. It doesn't bother me.
Does it bother you?
If so:
Then don't do it yourself.
(is helpful advice)
Oh...and also.
What have I mentioned about 'God At Work'?
I have mention hypocritical Septics at work
Last edited:
bull flow and septics
uh oh.....where are we going now..........? up a well known stinky creek?
In all honesty though, i have had moments of wanting to attack Navigator too but in the end my conscience overrides as I believe it cannot possibily be all his fault, as to how I feel
anyway, despite feeling uncomfortable - somehow Navigator your posts always seek to bring new light to awareness and I grow
so good on you Spotty
uh oh.....where are we going now..........? up a well known stinky creek?
In all honesty though, i have had moments of wanting to attack Navigator too but in the end my conscience overrides as I believe it cannot possibily be all his fault, as to how I feel
anyway, despite feeling uncomfortable - somehow Navigator your posts always seek to bring new light to awareness and I grow
so good on you Spotty
Navigator,
If you aren't a believer then I stand corrected and apologise but you appear from your posts to be a believer of sorts. Articulett has pointed out several times that believers seem to think that theirs is the only belief that is valid and asked, "why is it"? Tom Cruise etc...
My point is: why is someone's belief any different from that hag's (had to be insulting there because she is one)? This woman actually has a following who believe that she has a connection with the christian god and he supplies her with powers. She can also talk to souls (the point of this thread) who have departed and does have OBEs of her own.
There is also a mountain of evidence that show her to be a callous liar and a fraud who takes money under false pretences. But she still insists that god is with her and on her side. He has even blessed her son with the same powers.
ergo; Her's must be the true god and all others are nonsense. She has demonstrable power, nobody else does.
If you aren't a believer then I stand corrected and apologise but you appear from your posts to be a believer of sorts. Articulett has pointed out several times that believers seem to think that theirs is the only belief that is valid and asked, "why is it"? Tom Cruise etc...
My point is: why is someone's belief any different from that hag's (had to be insulting there because she is one)? This woman actually has a following who believe that she has a connection with the christian god and he supplies her with powers. She can also talk to souls (the point of this thread) who have departed and does have OBEs of her own.
There is also a mountain of evidence that show her to be a callous liar and a fraud who takes money under false pretences. But she still insists that god is with her and on her side. He has even blessed her son with the same powers.
ergo; Her's must be the true god and all others are nonsense. She has demonstrable power, nobody else does.
Where have I done any such thing?
Says who? I have some "understandings" that I doubt many fellow skeptics would agree with, let alone people who make claims they cannot substantiate.
Science of necessity will almost always be "nearly exact," because if you purport to be "exact," all further discovery is impossible.
M.