Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: Given that it is almost impossible to be an individual

Why do you work so hard to try and force me to recant every statement I've ever made?

If it's that important to you then yes. I was wrong. Reality doesn't exist if that's what you believe. If you don't believe that then reality does exist. If you believe that ghosts exist then so do I. If you believe that ketchup exists solely for the purpose of decorating vanilla ice cream then so do I. Thanks for changing my worldview. I'm forever in your debt.

On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:23 AM, leerevdouglas@googlemail.com <lee@rdfmedia.com> wrote:

> If you had no sensory input what would you base your reality on?

In such a case how would you even be sure that you existed?  No sight,
no touch, no hearing, no smell.  A very hard job indeed, you would
live entirly in a world of your making.

> I think this is what science and technology are all about. Confirming and
> extending our understanding of what it is that we sense.

> Not really. It's more because there is no empirical scientific evidence for
> the existence of a metaphysical universe. But, there are more likely
> explanations that don't rely on a metaphysical universe and I choose those
> explanations because they add substance to the foundations of my belief
> system rather than detract from it.

Indeed, I totaly get where you are at on this.  I think we all do
this, it is in fact my point.

However as you have said you do not discount the idea that because we
can't sense it, it does not exist?  Ahhh heheh but you did say that
earler, a retraction then?

> Actually, if I saw ghosts everywhere I'd be looking for the most reasonable
> explanation I could find. If that led to a metaphysical universe that wasn't
> within my belief system then I would have to tear my belief system down and
> start from scratch. Anything that would require that kind of catastrophic
> reevaluation would have to be VERY substantive.

That is good to know.  However can you see any diferance in that mode
of thought and the mode of thought employed by a beliver in ghosts,
who is more likely to look at the metaphysical reason first?

> The difference between the two is that reason has constraints that faith
> does not. There is no 'link' between the two other than the fact that they
> are different methodologies for arriving at a conclusion.

Heheh yeah perhaps, but I would say that faith not tempered with some
reason is not faith but stupidity myself.

> > wrote:
> > > First, let me preface my comment by saying that I was being facetious
> > about
> > > only believing my senses. I do believe that there are things out there
> > that
> > > are as yet unexplained (note that I didn't say things that can't be
> > > explained).
>
> > > Science has yet to come up with a truly consistent theory that explains
> > all
> > > aspects of reality. However, it does seem reasonable to use the our
> > senses
> > > as the foundation of a belief system that models our reality.
>
> > > I guess that what I'm trying to say is that while some may look into a
> > cloud
> > > of mist and see a ghost, I would tend to believe that the ghost is just
> > > water droplets being stirred around by the wind. I don't entirely reject
> > the
> > > possibility that the ghost might in fact be a ghost. I just put the
> > > likelihood very low on my list of probable explanations.
>
> > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Fair enough, I don't feel much into reading about gnosis at this time
> > > > either! :) It was just a reference and one I derive little sense of
> > > > authority from in this case. It took me a while to get my thoughts
> > collected
> > > > in just shabby form here but here it is for consideration, all IMO in
> > > > general.
>
> > > > I can relate to feeling and thinking that way myself, however there are
> > > > aspects of materialism that are just unavailable to today's minds
> > without
> > > > passing through some serious mind benders. In principle I do agree, but
> > only
> > > > on the grounds that the potential depth of interconnections in our
> > universe
> > > > should allow a linkage between any arbitrary thing and another. As a
> > > > principle of philosophy it could also be very beneficial to keep one's
> > head
> > > > 'tethered', very practical and utilitarian. At times much of what I
> > hear
> > > > sounds like five nines of BS, but that one thousandth of intuitive
> > capacity
> > > > can read in real time what would take a very long time indeed to fully
> > > > expose in subordinate intuitive terms (or 'hard' sciences). That
> > doesn't
> > > > mean it is an unworthy undertaking, but the opposite, very laborious
> > but
> > > > even more important.
>
> > > > There is an idea in various forms (out in the wild) which explains that
> > the
> > > > varying sciences, arts and philosophies are not at odds as one would
> > suppose
> > > > from studying them or being taught. As mental models or exercises to
> > prepare
> > > > mental perception they are schools and arts to focus and approach
> > problems
> > > > or questions. As imperfect representations of fact or truth they are
> > tools
> > > > of navigating information and knowledge, landmarks, references. By
> > > > recombining approaches in various fields you could eventually reach
> > > > propositions and explanations in many others refining, reinforcing,
> > > > undermining. This includes the normal senses, and the
> > institutionalization
> > > > of perception by our genetic makeup. I think it applies to all the
> > domains
> > > > of experience and inquiry that can pass through our minds and can
> > unlock
> > > > vast potential for free association of transmuting symbols. With the
> > aim of
> > > > building better tools to comprehend and master what and where we are I
> > > > invite you to consider the (perhaps) one thousandth of valuable
> > experiential
> > > > contributions that science is just beginning to explain.  Just the
> > potential
> > > > contributions, not the dogmas or interpretations. If for nothing else,
> > > > science without imagination is dead in the water, but I believe it will
> > take
> > > > many millennia for science to make religion (or better the spiritual
> > aspect)
> > > > obsolete. I think this would be an amazing Renaissance time for all
> > areas of
> > > > human experience.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -