Conquer Club

relevant seed quotes snipped from the community thread:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

j9b wrote:good point, but i disagree with the idea that the topics we talk about on here (namely politics and religion) need to be subjective. personal experiences, if anything, are an impediment to rational thought. if someone truly has a revelation from an event in their life, there's no reason why they can't explain to us why that experience shaped their viewpoint and should shape ours.

So you think there is no type of insight into the world that can't be explained verbally or in writing to other people ?
I don't necessarily see those 2 channels as equivalent. If you really get to the basics of philosophy and start questioning whether induction is really possible in every case and whether empiricism is a necessary or only a sufficient condition for knowledge you can get into some weird shit.
Practitioners of certain eastern religions claim that through meditation they can reach similar insights independently one of another. Should this be considered a form of empiricism ? Is it a fundamental problem that the states they reach really cannot adequately be explained in words? Personally I believe these sorts of things offer insights about the human mind and nothing more, a lot of people believe they offer insights about the universe at large cause after all the universe we know is necessarily perceived through the human mind.
Ah f*ck, I'm getting sidetracked.

j9b wrote:well... i'm a human, so of course it's at least a little bit subjective. but part of being a good thinker is (like i said above) removing the irrationality from our arguments. if somebody can't even do that (and this even applies to the "i've felt god in my life, so he must be real" people) then i'm gonna have a hard time taking them seriously.

Eh, I guess the basic difference is that you seem much more confident of your ability to "remove irrationality". I mean sure, there's shallow levels of irrationality that are easily spotted, but I cannot be sure there aren't deeper levels I'm completely unaware off.
It basically boils down to this: When I was a kid I was fuckin' 100% sure of the existence of Santa. I argued with other kids about it. I had "evidence" and convoluted reasoning. Turns out not only was I wrong, but I was wrong about such a thing that seems beyond obvious now.
How can I know I don't believe in any other Santa's now? How can I possibly be so sure of my thinking process as to reject the possibility that 90% of us are still believing in a Santa and that we'll be collectively kicking ourselves for it in 100 years?

we talk a lot in this forum about religion, god, ethic, morality, etc. but I've rarely seen everyone's views on the subjectiveness of reality itself. simple example of what I'm talking about: what is green (as in the color, not environmentalist stuff)? some would say it's a particular wavelength of EM radiation (aka light), others would say it's our perception of said light. what about those that are colorblind? my father couldn't tell the difference between red and green except for context clues (say the position of the lights at a stop light). how does our difference in perception affect how we react in different circumstances (in other words, how does our perception shape our reality)?
to go further with this, and to take HMM's example of Santas, are there things about our world that we take for granted as a given that could be based entirely on our perception of it? things that could very well be proven to not exist at all, or to exist in a completely different way that we thought? to go further with it, we can use the example of Santa itself. a child could believe santa exists for many reasons: he is given the existence by a trusted authority (parents, society, etc.), he can see the tangible effects of his presence (or more specifically presents), he could even see what he believe to actually be santa himself (in the form of mall santas, or someone at a party dressed up as santa). certainly he is wrong in the existence of said santa, but do we not use these very same criteria in judging the existence of the various elements of the world around us? how can we be sure of what we think we know?

fadedpsychosis wrote:relevant seed quotes snipped from the community thread:

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

j9b wrote:good point, but i disagree with the idea that the topics we talk about on here (namely politics and religion) need to be subjective. personal experiences, if anything, are an impediment to rational thought. if someone truly has a revelation from an event in their life, there's no reason why they can't explain to us why that experience shaped their viewpoint and should shape ours.

So you think there is no type of insight into the world that can't be explained verbally or in writing to other people ?
I don't necessarily see those 2 channels as equivalent. If you really get to the basics of philosophy and start questioning whether induction is really possible in every case and whether empiricism is a necessary or only a sufficient condition for knowledge you can get into some weird shit.
Practitioners of certain eastern religions claim that through meditation they can reach similar insights independently one of another. Should this be considered a form of empiricism ? Is it a fundamental problem that the states they reach really cannot adequately be explained in words? Personally I believe these sorts of things offer insights about the human mind and nothing more, a lot of people believe they offer insights about the universe at large cause after all the universe we know is necessarily perceived through the human mind.
Ah f*ck, I'm getting sidetracked.

j9b wrote:well... i'm a human, so of course it's at least a little bit subjective. but part of being a good thinker is (like i said above) removing the irrationality from our arguments. if somebody can't even do that (and this even applies to the "i've felt god in my life, so he must be real" people) then i'm gonna have a hard time taking them seriously.

Eh, I guess the basic difference is that you seem much more confident of your ability to "remove irrationality". I mean sure, there's shallow levels of irrationality that are easily spotted, but I cannot be sure there aren't deeper levels I'm completely unaware off.
It basically boils down to this: When I was a kid I was fuckin' 100% sure of the existence of Santa. I argued with other kids about it. I had "evidence" and convoluted reasoning. Turns out not only was I wrong, but I was wrong about such a thing that seems beyond obvious now.
How can I know I don't believe in any other Santa's now? How can I possibly be so sure of my thinking process as to reject the possibility that 90% of us are still believing in a Santa and that we'll be collectively kicking ourselves for it in 100 years?

we talk a lot in this forum about religion, god, ethic, morality, etc. but I've rarely seen everyone's views on the subjectiveness of reality itself. simple example of what I'm talking about: what is green (as in the color, not environmentalist stuff)? some would say it's a particular wavelength of EM radiation (aka light), others would say it's our perception of said light. what about those that are colorblind? my father couldn't tell the difference between red and green except for context clues (say the position of the lights at a stop light). how does our difference in perception affect how we react in different circumstances (in other words, how does our perception shape our reality)?
to go further with this, and to take HMM's example of Santas, are there things about our world that we take for granted as a given that could be based entirely on our perception of it? things that could very well be proven to not exist at all, or to exist in a completely different way that we thought? to go further with it, we can use the example of Santa itself. a child could believe santa exists for many reasons: he is given the existence by a trusted authority (parents, society, etc.), he can see the tangible effects of his presence (or more specifically presents), he could even see what he believe to actually be santa himself (in the form of mall santas, or someone at a party dressed up as santa). certainly he is wrong in the existence of said santa, but do we not use these very same criteria in judging the existence of the various elements of the world around us? how can we be sure of what we think we know?

The easy questions first eh?Of course everything could be perception,but how would we ever know?Consciousness itself is a complete mystery,if anyone tells you otherwise they are bullshitting.As a partially evolved mammalian species we can only work with what we have and that is hopelessly inadequate for the really big questions,we are quickly reduced to speculation and opinion.That is why I consistently argue against the degree of certainty expressed in the theist position,as well as the strong atheist one.Basically although your question is fascinating and should be explored, my view is that at this time humankind is incapable of answering it.

We actually kind of dealt with this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=116349&start=45

daddy1gringo wrote:We actually kind of dealt with this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=116349&start=45

sorry, I wasn't reading the forums 2 years ago *goes to read*
sorta... that thread is all questioning whether we exist or not and woodruff calling people stupid... this is more about getting people's thoughts on the nature of reality, not proof of existance

fadedpsychosis wrote:Eh, I guess the basic difference is that you seem much more confident of your ability to "remove irrationality". I mean sure, there's shallow levels of irrationality that are easily spotted, but I cannot be sure there aren't deeper levels I'm completely unaware off.
It basically boils down to this: When I was a kid I was fuckin' 100% sure of the existence of Santa. I argued with other kids about it. I had "evidence" and convoluted reasoning. Turns out not only was I wrong, but I was wrong about such a thing that seems beyond obvious now.
How can I know I don't believe in any other Santa's now? How can I possibly be so sure of my thinking process as to reject the possibility that 90% of us are still believing in a Santa and that we'll be collectively kicking ourselves for it in 100 years?

we talk a lot in this forum about religion, god, ethic, morality, etc. but I've rarely seen everyone's views on the subjectiveness of reality itself. simple example of what I'm talking about: what is green (as in the color, not environmentalist stuff)? some would say it's a particular wavelength of EM radiation (aka light), others would say it's our perception of said light. what about those that are colorblind? my father couldn't tell the difference between red and green except for context clues (say the position of the lights at a stop light). how does our difference in perception affect how we react in different circumstances (in other words, how does our perception shape our reality)?
to go further with this, and to take HMM's example of Santas, are there things about our world that we take for granted as a given that could be based entirely on our perception of it? things that could very well be proven to not exist at all, or to exist in a completely different way that we thought? to go further with it, we can use the example of Santa itself. a child could believe santa exists for many reasons: he is given the existence by a trusted authority (parents, society, etc.), he can see the tangible effects of his presence (or more specifically presents), he could even see what he believe to actually be santa himself (in the form of mall santas, or someone at a party dressed up as santa). certainly he is wrong in the existence of said santa, but do we not use these very same criteria in judging the existence of the various elements of the world around us? how can we be sure of what we think we know?[/quote]

If you are really interested in this read philosophical books. No amount of discussion here will be as good as you reading the books. There are many concepts and things to consider to be included in a post here.

fadedpsychosis wrote:

daddy1gringo wrote:We actually kind of dealt with this before in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=116349&start=45

sorry, I wasn't reading the forums 2 years ago *goes to read*
sorta... that thread is all questioning whether we exist or not and woodruff calling people stupid... this is more about getting people's thoughts on the nature of reality, not proof of existance

Yeah, that was a good thread.

All reality is...is perception. What we collectively agree is reality is simply what we, as a collective, agree that meets our perceptions. If someone doesn't agree that their view of reality meets our perception, then we call them Republicans crazy and put them in a mental institution.

In Adams' Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy, The Complete edition, there is the story of the invisible ship.

A contest was created, who ever could build an invisible ship would win a whole lot of money. All kinds of things were tried. Ships could be hidden from detection devices, but you could still see them.

That's when the answer was stumbled upon. Someone made a ship so strange, so bizarre, so completely alien, that it was invisible. That is, when someone, anyone actually saw it, their mind could not comprehend what it was seeing so the mind would just ignore it, thus making the ship invisible. It could be right in front of you but your brain would ignore it because it had no frame of reference in which to classify it.

There is a story told about a native tribe of people living on an island. They'd never seen anything but what was on their island. One day, the witch doctor was sitting on the beach and he looked out over the ocean and he saw a set of strange ripples in the water approaching the island. The ripples were far off, but they seemed to have no source.

So the trusted witchdocter, perplexed by the ripples, sat there on the beach and just watched them as they came closer and closer to the island. Everyone else in the tribe came to the beach as well, saw the ripples but not what was causing them.
For three days, the witchdoctor and many of the tribe stayed there on the beach, day and night, watching these ripples.

On the third day, suddenly, a ship simply appeared. Just off the beach. It just sort of blinked into existence. The witchdoctor could finally see what had been causing the ripples the whole time. Except, even then, no one else of the tribe could see the ship. None of them, even the witchdoctor, had ever seen anything like it before. The witchdoctor, more accustomed to perceiving what cannot be seen, was able to finally wrap his mind around what it was he was looking at and was finally able to see it.

So the witchdoctor told the rest of the tribe, "Look, right there, it's a ship and there are a strange people aboard. Look, even now they are launching, coming to the beach".
At that moment, after the witchdoctor explained what it was, everyone in the tribe could now see the ship. It took that trusted member of the tribe, the all important holy man, to tell them what it was. In trusting the witchdoctor so much, the rest of the tribe could now see what it was that they never even imagined, now that the trusted witchdoctor had explained what it was.

Maybe this applies to things like ghosts as well. I mean, I've never seen a ghost, but I also don't believe in them either. People who do believe in ghosts, they are the ones who see them, or at least open to the idea of ghosts. The mind must be conditioned to perceive certain things. Everything we see is referenced to something else. It's just how our minds are made, building on concepts we understand already to understand and perceive even more.
In my case toward ghosts, I just simply cannot accept a thing like ghosts being real. I doubt very much that I'd even be able to see one, even if they did exist.

Yeah Rene Descartes was a cool dude, that is, assuming he existed. In answer to the question the title of this thread puts forth: There's no earthly way of knowing.

Funkyterrance wrote:Yeah Rene Descartes was a cool dude, that is, assuming he existed. In answer to the question the title of this thread puts forth: There's no earthly way of knowing.

'I drink,therefore I am',courtesy of the Pythons..

Funkyterrance wrote:Yeah Rene Descartes was a cool dude, that is, assuming he existed. In answer to the question the title of this thread puts forth: There's no earthly way of knowing.

pfah! you guys are taking the easy way out...

nietzsche wrote:If you are really interested in this read philosophical books. No amount of discussion here will be as good as you reading the books. There are many concepts and things to consider to be included in a post here.

I have read several, and taken college classes too... but this thread isn't so much about what I know as it is about sparking a discussion and seeing everyone else's response. I know what I think, I want to know what others think.

OK: to update Dr Johnson: if that guy who jumped 24 miles had not packed a 'chute, I think he would have had a very final answer to this question.

Nice thread.

fadedpsychosis wrote:we talk a lot in this forum about religion, god, ethic, morality, etc. but I've rarely seen everyone's views on the subjectiveness of reality itself. simple example of what I'm talking about: what is green (as in the color, not environmentalist stuff)? some would say it's a particular wavelength of EM radiation (aka light), others would say it's our perception of said light. what about those that are colorblind? my father couldn't tell the difference between red and green except for context clues (say the position of the lights at a stop light).

I guess "green" is a way of describing a certain cognitive process, a certain perception. The colors we perceive actually aren't necessarily linked to a specific wavelength of radiation.

fadedpsychosis wrote: how does our difference in perception affect how we react in different circumstances (in other words, how does our perception shape our reality)?

A huge fucking lot.
We can trick the mind into misrepresenting one of the most common sensory perception, namely where our body stops and the rest of the world starts. You've probably heard of the phantom limb treatment that tricks your mind into thinking you have the arm back. There are many more examples of this kind of shift in body perception that shows that even our sense of "ourselves" is just a crude heuristic which can be easily deceived.

fadedpsychosis wrote:to go further with this, and to take HMM's example of Santas, are there things about our world that we take for granted as a given that could be based entirely on our perception of it? things that could very well be proven to not exist at all, or to exist in a completely different way that we thought? to go further with it, we can use the example of Santa itself. a child could believe santa exists for many reasons: he is given the existence by a trusted authority (parents, society, etc.), he can see the tangible effects of his presence (or more specifically presents), he could even see what he believe to actually be santa himself (in the form of mall santas, or someone at a party dressed up as santa). certainly he is wrong in the existence of said santa, but do we not use these very same criteria in judging the existence of the various elements of the world around us? how can we be sure of what we think we know?

We can't be sure. We usually assume that the fact that other people can experience the things we're experiencing makes them real. That's why we consider apple in tree = real, thousands of birds in sky while tripping on LSD = not real. Of course this is at best another heuristic. I don't think there is any objective way of defining "real".

patches70 wrote:Maybe this applies to things like ghosts as well. I mean, I've never seen a ghost, but I also don't believe in them either. People who do believe in ghosts, they are the ones who see them, or at least open to the idea of ghosts. The mind must be conditioned to perceive certain things. Everything we see is referenced to something else. It's just how our minds are made, building on concepts we understand already to understand and perceive even more.
In my case toward ghosts, I just simply cannot accept a thing like ghosts being real. I doubt very much that I'd even be able to see one, even if they did exist.

Interesting point, but the reverse must be noted as well.
We are pattern seeking creatures, we've evolved to see all kinds of connections and meanings often in things which are meaningless (tea leaves, goat guts etc.) If you set out looking for something vague, like a trace of spirits beyond the void, you will likely find something. That's just how our brains work.
That's one of the purposes of rigour, empiricism and all that good stuff, to try to temper this pattern seeking behaviour.

"Seek and ye shall find" is pretty much true, regardless of what you are seeking, as long as it is vague enough.

see: Philosophical Investigations)


the "Language, meaning, and use" section.

The Investigations deals largely with the difficulties of language and meaning. Wittgenstein viewed the tools of language as being fundamentally simple,[4] and he believed that philosophers had obscured this simplicity by misusing language and by asking meaningless questions. He attempted in the Investigations to make things clear: "Der Fliege den Ausweg aus dem Fliegenglas zeigen"—to show the fly the way out of the fly bottle.[5]

A common summary of his argument is that meaning is use—words are not defined by reference to the objects they designate, nor by the mental representations one might associate with them, but by how they are used. For example, this means there is no need to postulate that there is something called good that exists independently of any good deed.[6] This line of thought contrasts with Platonic realism and with Gottlob Frege's notions of sense and reference.