Reality and the mind

Everyone perceives everything in their mind

Atheism, secularism & freethought etc.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Reality and the mind

#61  Postby GrahamH » Jan 27, 2020 8:41 am

Spearthrower wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:With such low numbers of members, we really don't need more guard dogs barking at strangers. People have bad ideas, but surely that's why we'd want them to come here, to engage those bad ideas and increase skepticism and reasonable thinking about issues. Not keep everyone away who happens to believe in some woo?


If you were concerned about numbers you would be well advised to lay off your petty attacks on long term members.


And which 'petty attacks' would they be, GrahamH?


Since you ask...

The OP posted a one off provocative post on this sceptical forum asking for an un-sceptical reception of undefined "experiences".

You came in at post #12 with this undermining of Hermit who had read the OP's meaning more completely than you:
Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:
NoemaNovel wrote:what seems real to us is real.

Sorry for raining on your maiden post, but I have not heard anyone uttering such unmitigated nonsense since hippies roamed about freely in the wild.



I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making out, just a little unplumbed and poorly worded.

Hallucinations, delusions, even god experiences... they are best described, I think, by our brains doing something a-typical and our minds failing to perceive the distinction between something internally generated and something originating in the external world.


Then followed in post #14, further contradicting other members reasonable views and superficially supporting the provocative OP and attacking hermit, all the while tacitly admitting that the reality referred to in the OP is not reality and being pretty much as disrespectful to the OP as anyone else in not being accepting and uncritical:

Spearthrower wrote:But for example, it is valid:

what seems real to us is real (to us)

Thus hallucinations, delusions, mystical nonsense... what this means is that people aren't lying: they genuinely believe that the dysfunctions of their brains represent something real in the world.

To me, this is actually a topic worthy of discussing and showing why this presents a problem, and to make suggestions about how we might be able to overcome it.

If X is real to someone and you just tell them they're an idiot and to go away, they may go away but they still continue to believe X is real. Instead, if you can show them why the seeming real is not logically linked to the actually real, then you may offer them some way of navigating the quagmire they're in.


Then I replied directly and constructively to specifics in your post, pointing out that saying the OP's "what seems real to us is real (to us)" is not saying anything and that you are not being at all tolerant of unusual experiences by labelling them "delusions and dysfunctions of their brains".

GrahamH wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:But for example, it is valid:

what seems real to us is real (to us)

Thus hallucinations, delusions, mystical nonsense... what this means is that people aren't lying: they genuinely believe that the dysfunctions of their brains represent something real in the world.


And in that sentence you have just define "unreal". If a perception is "dysfunctions of their brains" then it is does not "represent something real in the world".

I take it that NoemaNovel would disagree that what you label "delusions" and "dysfunctions of their brains" are nothing of the sort. The claim seems to be that the perceptions represent something objectively real (although nt necessarily "in the world")

Your opener reduces to :

What seems real to us seems real (to us) which isn't worth a dime.

If we took all perceptions as reality we wouldn't have a concept for real/ unreal.


To which you replied with this personal attack, not addressing the substance of my post at all:
Spearthrower wrote:Now try reading what I wrote Graham. This is becoming a disturbing pattern.


Then you ramped up the aggression with another, double, personal attack:
Spearthrower wrote:
don't post vacuous "you didn't understand my brilliant post" non-replies.


And a strawman on top.

Yep, there's something very suspect going on here.


It was not a "strawman". You replied previously without reference to anything I wrote alleging I missed something in your post. The "brilliant post" is obvious sarcasm at this point because you are very clearly suggesting, with " try reading what I wrote Graham", that you reject the specific criticism of what you wrote, as if it was beyond criticism.

If someone says A,B or C in your post might be in error the non-vacuous response to to counter criticism of A, B or C, not to dismiss it with an insult.

And it went downhill from there.

A healthy forum need constructive discussion, not " try reading what I wrote Graham" and ignoring points made by other posters. Address the substance.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20398

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality and the mind

#62  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2020 10:48 am

GrahamH wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:With such low numbers of members, we really don't need more guard dogs barking at strangers. People have bad ideas, but surely that's why we'd want them to come here, to engage those bad ideas and increase skepticism and reasonable thinking about issues. Not keep everyone away who happens to believe in some woo?


If you were concerned about numbers you would be well advised to lay off your petty attacks on long term members.


And which 'petty attacks' would they be, GrahamH?


Since you ask...


No, I demand that you substantiate your accusation of me having made "petty attacks" against people with the implication, via the idea of 'laying off' that I have been doing it consistently.


GrahamH wrote:The OP posted a one off provocative post on this sceptical forum asking for an un-sceptical reception of undefined "experiences".


You found the OP 'provocative'? Provocative in the sense that it made you think? Provocative in the sense that it was seeking aggression? What exactly is 'provocative' about it?

To me, it doesn't come across in any way shape or form to be 'provocative'.

You are, again, mischaracterizing what the OP said - the OP did not ask you or anyone here for an unskeptical reception of experiences. I've shown this, you can double-down as much as you like, but there it remains.


GrahamH wrote:You came in at post #12 with this undermining of Hermit who had read the OP's meaning more completely than you:

Spearthrower wrote:
Hermit wrote:
NoemaNovel wrote:what seems real to us is real.

Sorry for raining on your maiden post, but I have not heard anyone uttering such unmitigated nonsense since hippies roamed about freely in the wild.



I don't think it's quite as bad as you're making out, just a little unplumbed and poorly worded.

Hallucinations, delusions, even god experiences... they are best described, I think, by our brains doing something a-typical and our minds failing to perceive the distinction between something internally generated and something originating in the external world.


Undermining him?

Seriously, is that really what you want to say here? That I dared to undermine someone?

As far as I am aware, I am perfectly entitled to share my opinions and I did so in a civil fashion that induced further discussion. I have no idea quite what you're complaining about because it's not like there's some kind of official line I am obliged to toe.

Further, as we're going there, don't you think you were "undermining" Hermit in the other thread where you likened his argument against banning Holocaust denial to be aligning himself with Holocaust deniers? Or is that fine because it's you doing it?

Hermit hadn't read the OP's post more clearly than me as I have already shown. Further, Hermit mistakenly believed that the OP was here to - in his words - spruik a book. Hermit has in fact acknowledged his mistake in that regard here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... l#p2729203

Hermit wrote:Looking back at my first two posts in this thread I must admit to having started off as being roundly dismissive of the opening post's content while not bothering to give any reasons for my dismissiveness whatsoever. And yes, in addition to summarily dismissing the OP's content I also targeted the individual himself when I accused him of only being here to spruik his book.

It turns out, as SkyMutt pointed out here, that I was wrong.


So it turns out that not even Hermit agrees with your rendition of the conversation, and in fact, has agreed with what I was saying on the first page of the thread. Keep stirring though.



GrahamH wrote:Then followed in post #14, further contradicting other members reasonable views ...


You're supposed to be arguing that I made "petty attacks" - that was your accusation.

But now I am on trial for 'contradicting' people?

And the supposed reasonableness of those views is not up for civil discussion on a discussion forum because you say so?

Good luck with that.


GrahamH wrote:... and superficially supporting the provocative OP...


Then once again, you're engaging in highly creative renditions of what was actually posted because I didn't "superficially support" the OP... let's look at what I actually wrote rather than this nonsensical chatter you're tossing out:

Spearthrower wrote:But for example, it is valid:

what seems real to us is real (to us)

Thus hallucinations, delusions, mystical nonsense... what this means is that people aren't lying: they genuinely believe that the dysfunctions of their brains represent something real in the world.

To me, this is actually a topic worthy of discussing and showing why this presents a problem, and to make suggestions about how we might be able to overcome it.

If X is real to someone and you just tell them they're an idiot and to go away, they may go away but they still continue to believe X is real. Instead, if you can show them why the seeming real is not logically linked to the actually real, then you may offer them some way of navigating the quagmire they're in.


So what did I do?

I discussed a point with Hermit, making a case for a particular point to be considered worthwhile discussing, suggesting that there are good reasons to treat this with more substance than Hermit had done up until then. I gave reasons supporting my argument, and pointed to how skepticism can actually help people address their bad ideas.

Thus the idea that I was offering support to the OP is clearly mischaracterizing what I wrote. And the OP was not 'provocative' in the slightest.


GrahamH wrote:... and attacking hermit,


Yes, this is what you are meant to be supporting - you already made this accusation, and this was where you were supposed to provide evidence to support that accusation; only, all you've done so far is tell me that I have 'undermined' Hermit by contradicting him... is this the 'petty attacks' you accused me of engaging in?

Show where I attacked Hermit or admit you are talking bollocks.


GrahamH wrote:... all the while tacitly admitting that the reality referred to in the OP is not reality and being pretty much as disrespectful to the OP as anyone else in not being accepting and uncritical:


Ahhh so now I was also 'disrespectful' to the OP - another claim you haven't bothered to support, yet a minute ago you were complaining that I undermined Hermit for his original dismissal of the 'provocative' OP. Do you want to make up your mind what it is I am supposed to have done and just go with that, or is this just an exercise in you cobbling together a bunch more inane aspersion to cast at me?


GrahamH wrote:
Then I replied directly and constructively to specifics in your post, pointing out that saying the OP's "what seems real to us is real (to us)" is not saying anything and that you are not being at all tolerant of unusual experiences by labelling them "delusions and dysfunctions of their brains".


This is all bullshit.

You are now actually lying.

You made zero mention at all of me being intolerant; you said that the OP would disagree with my usage of those terms.

Of course, I never actually said any of these things to the OP, or about the OP, but rather explained to Hermit that there are many cases where we know that people believe what seems to be true to them over and above what is evident to everyone. So once again, you are slinging shit and have nothing to back it up.

Further, you didn't actually reply constructively at all - you misread my post, you made unwarranted assumptions about it (as you're doing now) and basically responded to things I didn't write. This was not the first time recently you had done so.


GrahamH wrote:
To which you replied with this personal attack, not addressing the substance of my post at all:
Spearthrower wrote:Now try reading what I wrote Graham. This is becoming a disturbing pattern.


Want to underline the 'personal attack' there GrahamH?

Because I am looking at it right now and cannot see anything that could be construed as a personal attack.

The 'substance' of your post was founded on a misreading of my post - an apparently willful misreading at that, and as I'd just come from another thread where you'd been doing exactly that to me and other people, I told you to re-read what I'd written as I wasn't going to bother answering to a response that wasn't actually a reply to anything I'd written.


GrahamH wrote:Then you ramped up the aggression with another, double, personal attack:
Spearthrower wrote:
GrahamH wrote:don't post vacuous "you didn't understand my brilliant post" non-replies.


And a strawman on top.

Yep, there's something very suspect going on here.


So you reply to me with a strawman imputing that I am calling my post 'brilliant' whereas that simply does not exist in anything I've written, you also add the term 'vacuous'... and then I call it a 'strawman' and it's me who's personally attacking you? And I 'ramped up aggression'? That's aggression to you, is it GrahamH?

:lol:

Ok, I don't believe you know what the term 'personal attack' means, but my interest in your games is running out. If you want to make accusations about me having personally attacked you, then hit the report button and ask the moderators to warn me, because your assessment is wildly nonsensical.


GrahamH wrote:It was not a "strawman".


It was indeed a strawman - I had not said anything at all about my post being 'brilliant' - rather, you were not replying to the content of my post, but to some random idea you had that wasn't actually anything relevant to what I'd written.


GrahamH wrote:You replied previously without reference to anything I wrote alleging I missed something in your post.


Yes, I did. So what's the usual way of responding to that? Re-reading the post. Can't see what the other person means? Then you ask them what they mean. But not you GrahamH - you decided to be snarky again, and now you want to pretend that it's a personal attack on you! :roll:


GrahamH wrote:The "brilliant post" is obvious sarcasm at this point because you are very clearly suggesting, with " try reading what I wrote Graham", that you reject the specific criticism of what you wrote, as if it was beyond criticism.


And you verified this 'obvious' thing did you? No. This is exactly what I mean: you keep making these 'obvious inferences' about what X post is meant to mean, only there's no indication within that post that remotely justifies your assumption. Why are other people obliged to work to refute your assumptions if you're not willing to validate them in the first place?


GrahamH wrote:If someone says A,B or C in your post might be in error the non-vacuous response to to counter criticism of A, B or C, not to dismiss it with an insult.


An "insult" only you can see - just as you 'saw' things in my post which weren't there and responded to them without responding to what I had actually written.


GrahamH wrote:And it went downhill from there.


It's been going downhill since you started this bullshit a week or so back.


GrahamH wrote:A healthy forum need constructive discussion, not " try reading what I wrote Graham" and ignoring points made by other posters. Address the substance.


Oh a healthy forum needs discussion, only I have to be careful not to 'undermine' someone, or dare to 'contradict' them as you've berated me with above? :roll:

If you expect a substantive discussion - you need to ensure that you're reading posts in good faith, responding to the content in them, and not imposing nonsense onto them from your own imagination. When someone tells you that you've misread their post, don't pretend that you're right and they're wrong - it's you who's made a mistake. So if you're looking to school people on healthy fora and substantive discourse - start with yourself.



Edit quote tags
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 27, 2020 10:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#63  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2020 10:51 am

Destroyer wrote:I can see why Spearthrower is becoming increasingly frustrated with you, Graham. Are you deliberately attempting to misrepresent? or has your comprehension really become so poor now? It is obvious what is being said here: you welcome people, irrespective of their ideas, then you proceed to dismantle their bad ideas, even whilst being welcoming to them, as people. Even if the OP is asking for acceptance of bad ideas, it is clearly evident that Spearthrower is not.


Want to tell Destroyer that he's engaging in personal attacks too, GrahamH?

Destroyer points out that you seem intent on misrepresenting what I've written, and it's very difficult to believe you could be innocently mistaken given how removed your renditions are from what's written.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#64  Postby GrahamH » Jan 27, 2020 11:10 am

Spearthrower wrote:
So if you're looking to school people on healthy fora and substantive discourse - start with yourself.


Take your own advice on that.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20398

Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#65  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2020 11:13 am

GrahamH wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
So if you're looking to school people on healthy fora and substantive discourse - start with yourself.


Take your own advice on that.


Given your record over the last couple of weeks, I think you need to hear it too.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#66  Postby Destroyer » Jan 27, 2020 2:52 pm

I think that it is safe to say that the OP has lead to a bit of confusion. It is easy to see why Hermit, GrahamH, and possibly others, are interpreting the OP in the way that they are. Asking for what seems real to the individual to be accepted, can indeed be like a red flag to a bull, with different connotations. However, where the OP is concerned it is simply asking for us to accept, that as far as the individual is concerned it is real for them, not that we accept their reality, which is how it is being interpreted by Hermit, GrahamH etc.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1836
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#67  Postby GrahamH » Jan 27, 2020 3:19 pm

Destroyer wrote:I think that it is safe to say that the OP has lead to a bit of confusion. It is easy to see why Hermit, GrahamH, and possibly others, are interpreting the OP in the way that they are. Asking for what seems real to the individual to be accepted, can indeed be like a red flag to a bull, with different connotations. However, where the OP is concerned it is simply asking for us to accept, that as far as the individual is concerned it is real for them, not that we accept their reality, which is how it is being interpreted by Hermit, GrahamH etc.


Do you take it to be an epistemic issue? That all perceptions of "reality" are indirect and no one view should be privileged over any other?

Isn't that equivalent to "nothing that seems real is actually real"?

NoemaNovel wrote:
Since everyone perceives everything in their mind, “reality” can only ever be what our minds make it, so that what seems real to us is real.


It seems to be opposite. What seems real IS REAL.

The implication of that being that different views of what is real relate to different worlds.
Last edited by GrahamH on Jan 27, 2020 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20398

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality and the mind

#68  Postby Destroyer » Jan 27, 2020 3:26 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:I think that it is safe to say that the OP has lead to a bit of confusion. It is easy to see why Hermit, GrahamH, and possibly others, are interpreting the OP in the way that they are. Asking for what seems real to the individual to be accepted, can indeed be like a red flag to a bull, with different connotations. However, where the OP is concerned it is simply asking for us to accept, that as far as the individual is concerned it is real for them, not that we accept their reality, which is how it is being interpreted by Hermit, GrahamH etc.


Why would anyone ask anyone else to accept that what seems real to someone seems real to them? It's a tautology of no value.

The Op text isn't ambiguous on this point:

NoemaNovel wrote:
Since everyone perceives everything in their mind, “reality” can only ever be what our minds make it, so that what seems real to us is real.



If it seems real it is real.

I see the temptation to interpret that to mean "is real to them" but that is just a synonym for "seems real"

I think the simple straightforward reading the right one. It's an appeal to accept other realities.


The OP is asking if we think that the world would be a more tolerant place if people just accepted that others are being genuine in their reported experiences, regardless of how misguided they may be.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1836
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#69  Postby GrahamH » Jan 27, 2020 3:32 pm

Destroyer wrote:
The OP is asking if we think that the world would be a more tolerant place if people just accepted that others are being genuine in their reported experiences, regardless of how misguided they may be.


Tolerance / acceptance is mentioned, but where does "being genuine" come from? Accepting some experience "is real", or not, is not really about jucging if the person is genuine / honest. It's about whether their belief is justified by evidence and reason.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20398

Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#70  Postby Destroyer » Jan 27, 2020 3:44 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The OP is asking if we think that the world would be a more tolerant place if people just accepted that others are being genuine in their reported experiences, regardless of how misguided they may be.


Tolerance / acceptance is mentioned, but where does "being genuine" come from? Accepting some experience "is real", or not, is not really about jucging if the person is genuine / honest. It's about whether their belief is justified by evidence and reason.


Genuine is just another word for real, Graham. This is what the OP is all about: accepting other peoples reality, as being genuine to them. It is very easy to explain that having such a tolerance would be trivial and provide us with no information at all about what is reliable and what is not. But that is what the OP has presented to us here.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1836
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#71  Postby GrahamH » Jan 27, 2020 3:51 pm

Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The OP is asking if we think that the world would be a more tolerant place if people just accepted that others are being genuine in their reported experiences, regardless of how misguided they may be.


Tolerance / acceptance is mentioned, but where does "being genuine" come from? Accepting some experience "is real", or not, is not really about jucging if the person is genuine / honest. It's about whether their belief is justified by evidence and reason.


Genuine is just another word for real, Graham. This is what the OP is all about: accepting other peoples reality, as being genuine to them. It is very easy to explain that having such a tolerance would be trivial and provide us with no information at all about what is reliable and what is not. But that is what the OP has presented to us here.


OK, "being genuine in their reported experiences" suggested something else. "Genuine reports" are not contentious. People have unusual experiences and they report how they seemed to them. Those reports being accurate reflections of objective reality is the controversial point.
Others are being genuine, but are they correct or mistaken?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20398

Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#72  Postby Destroyer » Jan 27, 2020 4:00 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The OP is asking if we think that the world would be a more tolerant place if people just accepted that others are being genuine in their reported experiences, regardless of how misguided they may be.


Tolerance / acceptance is mentioned, but where does "being genuine" come from? Accepting some experience "is real", or not, is not really about jucging if the person is genuine / honest. It's about whether their belief is justified by evidence and reason.


Genuine is just another word for real, Graham. This is what the OP is all about: accepting other peoples reality, as being genuine to them. It is very easy to explain that having such a tolerance would be trivial and provide us with no information at all about what is reliable and what is not. But that is what the OP has presented to us here.


OK, "being genuine in their reported experiences" suggested something else. "Genuine reports" are not contentious. People have unusual experiences and they report how they seemed to them. Those reports being accurate reflections of objective reality is the controversial point.
Others are being genuine, but are they correct or mistaken?


This is why Spearthrower thought it would be a good idea to debate with the OP. To get them to realize that we are none the wiser about which experiences can tell us anything worthwhile about the real/objective world.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1836
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#73  Postby GrahamH » Jan 27, 2020 4:16 pm

Destroyer wrote:
This is why Spearthrower thought it would be a good idea to debate with the OP. To get them to realize that we are none the wiser about which experiences can tell us anything worthwhile about the real/objective world.


It might have been good if there was something definite in the OP, but it was basically content free aside from pleas for tolerance and an invitation to share.

Still, the OP may have been judged successful if the aim of the hit and run posting was to provoke division and over 70 posts.

Thank you for your very civil exchange. It's a refreshing change.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20398

Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#74  Postby Destroyer » Jan 27, 2020 4:22 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
This is why Spearthrower thought it would be a good idea to debate with the OP. To get them to realize that we are none the wiser about which experiences can tell us anything worthwhile about the real/objective world.


It might have been good if there was something definite in the OP, but it was basically content free aside from pleas for tolerance and an invitation to share.

Still, the OP may have been judged successful if the aim of the hit and run posting was to provoke division and over 70 posts.

Thank you for your very civil exchange. It's a refreshing change.


No problem.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1836
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#75  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2020 5:05 pm

Still, the OP may have been judged successful if the aim of the hit and run posting was to provoke division and over 70 posts.


Which nothing suggests is the case...

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/new-m ... 36-20.html

That thread has the same issue - the OP just says hello.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reality and the mind

#76  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 27, 2020 5:08 pm

Destroyer wrote:
This is why Spearthrower thought it would be a good idea to debate with the OP. To get them to realize that we are none the wiser about which experiences can tell us anything worthwhile about the real/objective world.



Glad to see that my own experiences (in this case what I've written) aren't purely figments of my imagination as at least you took what was clearly the intended meaning from them.

:cheers:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27415
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#77  Postby Destroyer » Jan 27, 2020 5:15 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
This is why Spearthrower thought it would be a good idea to debate with the OP. To get them to realize that we are none the wiser about which experiences can tell us anything worthwhile about the real/objective world.



Glad to see that my own experiences (in this case what I've written) aren't purely figments of my imagination as at least you took what was clearly the intended meaning from them.

:cheers:


:cheers:
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1836
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#78  Postby Rumraket » Feb 12, 2020 1:32 pm

NoemaNovel wrote:Have you ever experienced something you couldn’t explain

No. I don't think it is possible even in principle to have an experience for which I could not make up some sort of explanation. The real question would be whether I can show the explanation to be true. Speculations and imagination can be fun, but that is what it is.

NoemaNovel wrote:or had a dream that disturbed you because it felt so real?

I have had dreams that felt incredibly real, though I wouldn't say that I was disturbed by it. I've been disappointed to wake up from certain dreams prematurely though. Mostly because I really just needed more sleep.

NoemaNovel wrote:Have you ever tried to explain this to anyone only to be told that you have “an over-active imagination”?

I can't say I've ever had that experience. On the contrary I find that most people are actually overly receptive to fantastical and magical thinking, not showing the proper level of skepticism towards it.

NoemaNovel wrote:Since everyone perceives everything in their mind, “reality” can only ever be what our minds make it

That doesn't follow. What you could say instead is that since each of us can't seem to move beyond our own subjective experience, then we can never really prove that our experiences are of an objective reality. That does not entail that an objective reality does not exist, or that we do not inhabit it.

NoemaNovel wrote:Do you agree that if more people accepted this, they might be kinder and more tolerant to one another?

No, not really. I've found people who obsess about the subjectivity of their experiences are no less likely to be assholes than anyone else.

NoemaNovel wrote:Are you willing to help make this happen by sharing your own experiences of your reality with others who will not judge or criticise it but will accept it on its own terms?

No. It sounds to me like a recipe for disaster if we give everyone total leeway to insist that their personal subjective view on matters hold equal validity to everyone else's. What is to stop someone from stealing all your possessions and then insisting that in his view, they all really belong to him? Do we now say we just have two competing but equally valid subjective views on who owns those stolen goods? No, there is an objective fact of the matter with respect to who owns your stuff, and we are not forced to just accept that some idiot can make up his own reality and insist he shares ownership of your stuff.

If you disagree, please kindly send me all your money. I feel like I know it's mine. Thank you.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13206
Age: 39

Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#79  Postby GrahamH » Feb 12, 2020 2:07 pm

This was a hit and run single post by NoemaNovel
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20398

Print view this post

Re: Reality and the mind

#80  Postby angelo » Mar 12, 2020 7:41 am

GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Destroyer wrote:
The OP is asking if we think that the world would be a more tolerant place if people just accepted that others are being genuine in their reported experiences, regardless of how misguided they may be.


Tolerance / acceptance is mentioned, but where does "being genuine" come from? Accepting some experience "is real", or not, is not really about jucging if the person is genuine / honest. It's about whether their belief is justified by evidence and reason.


Genuine is just another word for real, Graham. This is what the OP is all about: accepting other peoples reality, as being genuine to them. It is very easy to explain that having such a tolerance would be trivial and provide us with no information at all about what is reliable and what is not. But that is what the OP has presented to us here.


OK, "being genuine in their reported experiences" suggested something else. "Genuine reports" are not contentious. People have unusual experiences and they report how they seemed to them. Those reports being accurate reflections of objective reality is the controversial point.
Others are being genuine, but are they correct or mistaken?

A schizophrenic would think his/hers delusion are real. In fact most religions originated from these people. In those superstitious times, what would a naivete think if a delusional person told him/her a god gave them a messege for mankind!
User avatar
angelo
 
Name: angelo barbato
Posts: 22513
Age: 72
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Nontheism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest