geko Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Off topic but Linda, i wasnt aware that there is evidence indicating jesus didnt exist, but was aware that there is lack of evidence in favour of. On those grounds only it is 'scientifically feasible' to assume he didnt exist; for e.g. astrology is non-factual because of the lack of evidence in support of the theory, not the evidence against. Therefore it's scientifically feasible to not give assent towards the theory. Just wondering if you've mixed your terms up really. Anyway, in my opinion, 'real' is ambiguous and non-descriptive. If we want to comment on external reality as being either 'real or 'non-real' the term 'objective existence' is more descriptive in my opinion. That said, each one of us has identity. These identities act, create, interact and destroy on the playing field of what we have termed 'society' in the arena of planet earth. This can be seen (sensed, whatever), in real time, as happening by each and every identity. Therefore i propose that this is an objective existence. It happens. It's real. The subjective is different. Identities dont sense subjective experiences (hallucinations etc.,), an identity does. Exist objectively they do not, but that doesnt mean that the processes having happened to an identity that made it experience these states didnt happen. The circumstances (mis-firing synapses, whatever) were real, they happened, but the experience was erroneous because it wasnt sensed by perception, it was an aberration caused by these circumstantial processes of a particular identity. That said, it happens, it's real, but not in an objective sense. Maybe we could say that "if it happens it's REAL"... never written anything like that before, opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by: gekoOff topic but Nope, I think you are right on, topic as well! :-)Linda, i wasnt aware that there is evidence indicating jesus didnt exist, but was aware that there is lack of evidence in favour of. I had wondered the same thing, but liked the comment so much I didn't bother... Linda?These identities act, create, interact and destroy on the playing field of what we have termed 'society' in the arena of planet earth. This can be seen (sensed, whatever), in real time, as happening by each and every identity. Therefore i propose that this is an objective existence. It happens. It's real.Actually we can not "see" or "sense" things in "real time". When we are exposed to external stimulus, there is a finite measurable delay between the physical organ's exposure to the stimulous and that data reaching the brain. Then there is some less measurable but finite time period before our conscious mind (what ever that is) becomes "aware" of it. Maybe we could say that "if it happens it's REAL"The big problem is that we in and of ourselves, because of many physiological issues, are not good sources of accurate data of events. We can not be trusted to have determined if something is "real" or not. Magicians, optical illusions, twinkling stars, ... are classic examples of how easily our senses and cognition fail to determine "reality". We must learn to realize our failings and make adjustments. never written anything like that before, opinions?A great first effort. I am looking foreward to more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodI did not post this message in the past.Then who did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by: FreethinkerActually we can not "see" or "sense" things in "real time". When we are exposed to external stimulus, there is a finite measurable delay between the physical organ's exposure to the stimulous and that data reaching the brain. Then there is some less measurable but finite time period before our conscious mind (what ever that is) becomes "aware" of it. Yeah i was aware of this but just omitted it to be pragmatic (maybe it's not accurate to do that, in which case whoops lol). Actually, on this same topic have you ever noticed this delay yourself. Maybe im wrong but im sure i have. For example, say you close your eyes and then open them really quickly you'll be aware of a stimulus in your filed of vision but wont have a clue at to what it actually is. Even if you know what is there before you close your eyes, you still wont see it (or maybe comprehend it is a better term) for a short moment of time. Maybe im wrong though and im actually making an inaccurate judgement call on an experience. In which case was this experience of mine real or not? Or maybe it is just my judgement call on my experience that is inaccuate [EDIT: therefore the experiecne was real but the description of it was false]? Now im a little confused at the mo so ill leave that for now and move on I actually read somewhere that this delay is like 2 seconds or more between stimulus and comprehension, but 2 secs is a long time and if it is this long i think my judgement call on my experience above is really bizarre because this would seem to point to a layer of consciousness overlooking the comprehension of perception. I was aware the psychologically different types of the conscious process have been categorised and pigeon-holed (such as conscious, sub-conscious etc.,) but wasnt aware that they may be able to work in parallel. An anology of a cpu with hyperthreading technology maybe? Maybe im just going off on one... tum-te-dum Originally posted by: FreethinkerThe big problem is that we in and of ourselves, because of many physiological issues, are not good sources of accurate data of events. We can not be trusted to have determined if something is "real" or not. Magicians, optical illusions, twinkling stars, ... are classic examples of how easily our senses and cognition fail to determine "reality". We must learn to realize our failings and make adjustments. True, but some optical illusions are a validation of perception. A stick appearing bent under water is a classic example that's used to invalidate the senses but yet this is really a testament to their validity because light travels slower (<-dont know the proper word) through water so our sight in this instance is actually giving us reality as it really is, or rather, as it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 1, 2004 Report Share Posted October 1, 2004 Originally posted by: gekoActually, on this same topic have you ever noticed this delay yourself. Maybe im wrong but im sure i have. For example, say you close your eyes and then open them really quickly you'll be aware of a stimulus in your filed of vision but wont have a clue at to what it actually is. Even if you know what is there before you close your eyes, you still wont see it (or maybe comprehend it is a better term) for a short moment of time. Another good example is our reaction to pain stymulous. Test show that we often react physically to stimulous not only faster than we become aware of it. But faster than the data could travel to the brain and back. e.g. how you will quickly retract your finger when it is pricked with a pin or touches heat. It has been shown that we have an autonomic response design that operate locally. That response can be from neurons at a synapse in the spinal cord. That even our bodies function in a seperate time frame from our minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 How can our bodies function in any way separately from our "minds" unless you are using the term metaphysically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 "The big problem is that we in and of ourselves, because of many physiological issues, are not good sources of accurate data of events. We can not be trusted to have determined if something is "real" or not. Magicians, optical illusions, twinkling stars, ... are classic examples of how easily our senses and cognition fail to determine "reality". We must learn to realize our failings and make adjustments." actually, all "experiements" are from our senses. radiation --> record on computer --> eyes see the data on screen.particles collide--> a bunch of picture made by machines--> eyesmicroscope --> eyes... how do we actually know that the equipments are trustworthy and the datas are really "real"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 3, 2004 Report Share Posted October 3, 2004 I though this was what the scientific method was for. Testing your data in several ways can show different results and thus give clues to how much of the results is biased and how much is non-biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 4, 2004 Report Share Posted October 4, 2004 Originally posted by: Tim_Louactually, all "experiements" are from our senses.You miss the point Tim. Yes we must use our senses in order to bring the data into our brain. We have to "read" a paper, "hear" a presentation, ... But we do not depend on our sense to make the measurements. We do not exclusively trust our eyes in order to measure a length. We use a ruler, ... We do not trust our ears to determine vibrational frequencies, we use a scope, freq meter, ... We do not trust the direct results of our senses. We merely use them to allow the data to be communicated to us. And as we see often on this site, even that can be untrustable and very problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts