• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Limits of Science

Irritating Ian shows his maturity and intellectual level once again.

I.I., didn't your momma ever teach you, if you can't say something nice... :D

Iacchus, the 'root of the thing' is that whether the food is real or if we perceive it to be real, the fact is that if we fail to eat it we will starve and die; if we fail to drink the perceived water, we dehydrate and die. If we fire the perceived bullet into our perceived brain, we die.

This is why perception vs. reality is generally irrelevant.
 
lifegazer said:
Seems to me that Radrook is trying to say the same things I've been saying.

... When we acknowledge the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of that thing, we must also acknowledge that sensed-things are not real in themselves.

I have never understood this part of your philosophy, Lifegazer.

While I aknowledge that sensed things MAY not be real in themselves, I don't follow how you can completely rule out the possibility that the sensed 'thing' is what it appears to be.
 
zaayrdragon said:

Iacchus, the 'root of the thing' is that whether the food is real or if we perceive it to be real, the fact is that if we fail to eat it we will starve and die; if we fail to drink the perceived water, we dehydrate and die. If we fire the perceived bullet into our perceived brain, we die.

This is why perception vs. reality is generally irrelevant.
What is reality without its inner perspective? Surely you don't believe everything exists from the outside in do you?

So tell me, what is the you that resides within you? Is it possible to live outside of your skin? Or, what is it about a rock that makes it a rock? Does it not have an inner (spiritual) nature too? Sounds to me like perception has everything to do with reality.
 
Iacchus said:
But then again the recipe may not be as important to me, and/or necessary, as you think it is?

But then again the recipe may not be as important to me, and/or necessary, as you think it is?

Then again, maybe it is, and you just don't realize it yet?
 
Ratman_tf said:

I have never understood this part of your philosophy, Lifegazer.

While I aknowledge that sensed things MAY not be real in themselves, I don't follow how you can completely rule out the possibility that the sensed 'thing' is what it appears to be.
Hey, anything's possible, right? ;)
 
I say, things exist. We perceive them, but they exist whether we are there to perceive them or not.

Our perceptions can be fooled - intentionally. But this tells me even more so that there is an objective reality.

The 'me' within me, it IS me. I am my skin, my blood, my bones. But bits of 'me' can be removed, leaving Me here... When I had my wisdom teeth pulled, they ceased to be of Me and were themselves. Since they lacked all organs of consideration, I'd consider it absolutely sensible that they are without an inner Self, Soul, etc.

In fact, I'd venture a guess to say that the thing we'd like to consider the Self resides firmly within the cells of the Brain, albeit in no specified part of said brain. The fact that brains can continue to function with huge sections missing or damaged suggests a magnificent redundancy capability of the brain; it further suggests that Self resides throughout the brain in total, and can be adjusted as needed when the brain suffers damage.

Remove a person's brain, and the person cannot live. For all other organs, AFAIK, we can replace organs with machines, devices, etc... but for the brain, nothing can 'sit in' for it. So the 'self' lies in the tissues of the brain.

This being true, what about the rest of the being?

Well, as I see it, the body is a vessel - a highly comlplex machine which serves the brain. It was not designed as such; rather evolutionary forces created this unique scenario. Thus, loss of a body part is irrelevant to the self, save obviously for pain, discomfort, and aggravation of said loss; if I lose an eye, my vision may be impaired, but my self remains. If I lose a limb, likewise.

And we can replace many parts artificially - so the body can be rendered complete once more, albeit not AS complete.

When the self dies, however, what remains is plant food. The body is not sacred; it is just rotting organic matter that should not waste space in some cemetary.

Consider that every 7 years, most of your body is completely new (well, replaced, anyway). Total body replacement happens every seven years, roughly, except for the brain, I think. (May be wrong there). Of course, this doesn't happen all at once, or smoothly across the whole body; but if you could suppress a cellular infestation like AIDS for seven years, there's a chance you could be cured because all of the infested cells would be cycled out of the body.

Does this affect the Self? Apparently not.

At any rate, what I say is, things are external to the Self, and our perceptions of them are consistant enough and accurate enough that we may reasonably assume the reality of our perceptions, and therefore have no need to ponder philosophically on the 'true' nature of things. If you question All-That-Is, then you get nowhere; therefore, questioning the nature of your perceived universe is pointless, useless, and moronic.
 
zaayrdragon said:

I say, things exist. We perceive them, but they exist whether we are there to perceive them or not.

Our perceptions can be fooled - intentionally. But this tells me even more so that there is an objective reality.
Or, it could very well suggest there's a greater intelligence to reality than what we perceive? Indeed, the fact that the barn door is wide open on the matter could very insist that it must be. Afterall isn't that what they say, that nature abhors a vacuum?
 
Is this what you claim? You certainly can't prove it to me now can you?

I don't have to, science has proven itself and is still proving itself to be reliable over and over and over again.



Oh, and if a person is crazy, how do you prove to them that they're crazy? In fact how do you prove anything to anybody, crazy or otherwise?


You should take a psychology class, idiot.
 
Iacchus said:
Oh, is that to say what you do (based upon what you perceive) doesn't affect anybody else? Don't you realize that everything is based upon how it functions interiorly? How would it work in other words, if everything existed from the outside in?

You speak nothing but nonsense, you freaking moron. It's scientific fact that perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.
 
Or, it could very well suggest there's a greater intelligence to reality than what we perceive?

Not at all, you would have to show some connective logic to support your assertion. Right now, it's just a jump to conclusion.

Indeed, the fact that the barn door is wide open on the matter could very insist that it must be.

That is complete BS, simply because you think something might be possible doesn't make it have to exist.

Afterall isn't that what they say, that nature abhors a vacuum?

Who are "they"?
 
thaiboxerken said:

You speak nothing but nonsense, you freaking moron. It's scientific fact that perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.
What are you saying that reality doesn't require that it participate -- and how does it do that if not internally ;) -- in order to exist? External reality is only the aftermath of that which happens internally.
 
What are you saying that reality doesn't require that it participate

False, reality does not require our perceptions. Reality existed long before humans and will exist long after we are gone. This is a scientific fact.
 
thaiboxerken said:

That is complete BS, simply because you think something might be possible doesn't make it have to exist.
Have you seen the movie, The Matrix? Now why did so many people find that movie compelling? Because, given the right scenario, it is possible right?
 
thaiboxerken said:

False, reality does not require our perceptions. Reality existed long before humans and will exist long after we are gone. This is a scientific fact.
If you say that you don't act upon what you perceive which, of course affects what everybody else perceives and acts upon, then you're full of baloney! Hate to tell you this but this is what reality is all about. ;)
 
Iacchus said:
If you say that you don't act upon what you perceive which, of course affects what everybody else perceives and acts upon, then you're full of baloney! Hate to tell you this but this is what reality is all about. ;)

That's not what he's saying at all - you and strawmen go hand in hand.
 
thaiboxerken said:


You speak nothing but nonsense, you freaking moron. It's scientific fact that perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.

I sit in the woods before sunrise, motionless, cradling a high powered rifle, listening. Dawn comes and I'm able to see further and further. Birds sing; squirrels begin to clomp about in the cold, dry leaves. I perceive a squirrel on the ground in front of me. I sit motionless, watching, listening. The squirrel runs up a tree and back down, bounds into the leaves again, and hops onto a fallen tree. He makes his way along the tree, taking his time, yet moving steadily. Then he stops in his tracks. He leans forward, looking. I slowly, slowly turn my head to see what's caught his attention and I see it. Moving like smoke, absolutely quietly, a buck. He's heading toward me. He almost seems to be floating. As he passes behind a brushpile, I raise my rifle and aim at the point at which I think he's going to emerge from behind the brush. He does. He glides into the open and stops, flaring his nostrils. He stomps the ground once. He knows something is close. He's the epitome of alertness. I slowly, slowy inch the sight to his heart and squeeze the trigger.

You're right. Perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.
 
Iacchus said:
Have you seen the movie, The Matrix? Now why did so many people find that movie compelling? Because, given the right scenario, it is possible right?

Most people are stupid, to actually think that the movie is possible is rather stupid.

I enjoyed the movie because of the cool sci-fi, kung-fu action.
 
thaiboxerken said:

False, reality does not require our perceptions. Reality existed long before humans and will exist long after we are gone. This is a scientific fact.
Even something as inaminate as a rock participates in reality. Why? Because if it did not exist as a rock "interiorly" (via its internal structure) it would not be here.
 

Back
Top Bottom