Realism vs. Believing

Originally posted by v01i0
This thread was provoked by an attempt to reply this post.

Another related thread.

First of all, this isn't a philosophy at all, but cold realism. Almost (see the end of the post) nothing should be 'believed' by induction or deduction; if someone tells you that it is bad weather outside, go and see if there really is bad weather there: It's rainy and windy, not bad at all, since the wind refreshens the air and the rain gives moisture to the plants.

Someone comes to you, explaining that there is a god up in the heaven, cunningly explaining why this must be: "For I have seen it." or "Because everything fits so perfectly.", perhaps explaining physical phenomenas attributing those to 'god'. If you believe, you have sold your soul. You don't know if there is a god, you just believe. You'll have to visit the heaven in order to find out; and it might be that you wouldn't find a bearded old man there, who knows?

As soon as you take a belief as a truth, a crack is made in to your identity. One which should have been indivisible (the individual), has begun to break. More you believe, more you break yourself. There might come a day, when the reality contradicts your beliefs; it is a lot rougher ride for the believer than it is for the realist, and it might happen, that the sanity of believer won't survive that day.

One of the fundamental distinctions between the realist and the believer is that the realist lives according the moment (carpe diem) and the believer lives in past and in the future. This causes the believer to be inflexible in varying situations, while the realist maintain flexibility and are more capable of appropriate reaction, required by the situation.

Please bear in mind that this is not an attack against your personal experiences that may be related to spiritual experiences. If you have experienced something that can be considered 'extraordinary' in spiritual sense, that indeed is your subjective experience, not belief. Just be careful, that you won't lightly accept any explanations, that false 'teachers' are offering.

Whatever, there are cases, when believing makes life easier, for example, if someone tells you that this pan is hot, don't touch it - and if it is really hot, it is better to believe. Nevertheless, this need for advice has been terribly abused by religions. People want easy living, they don't want spend their time thinking metaphysical things like origins of the world, so they just adapt a religion. Some people may have had 'experiences' related to spiritual things and are looking for explanation, then one is easy prey for a cunning abuser, the spiritual - often false - 'guru'.

-v

This is a philosophical position called "Epistemological nihilism". It's useless for knowing anything about the world, including it's own position. If we were to take your position to it's logical conclusion, then your own post should not even be contemplated

reply to post by xelamental


I disagree, I would rather consider it to be empiricism:

Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning, as in the case of genetic predisposition).

Nihilism states that:

...life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

I don't renounce the meaning of life - the meaning of life is to live and evolve, at least in my opinion.

-v

[edit on 25-11-2009 by v01i0]

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by xelamental

 

I disagree, I would rather consider it to be empiricism:

Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas (except in so far as these might be inferred from empirical reasoning, as in the case of genetic predisposition).

Nihilism states that:

...life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

I don't renounce the meaning of life - the meaning of life is to live and evolve, at least in my opinion.

-v

[edit on 25-11-2009 by v01i0]

Ok. I misunderstood your position. The problem with empiricism is that by trusting your senses you are being deluded. As a mentalist I am able to create vast delusions in others or myself easily. If I am able to do this, is it real?

reply to post by xelamental


Your point is valid to a certain degree, but that has already been inquired in previous posts on this thread. I am not implying that you should read them all through before answering, just pointing out the fact.

But I can revise it shortly: Basically quick judgement of individual observation can lead to illusions and miscontemplations (as we see to happen all around us), but trusting on subjective experiences requires careful observation, a constant vigilance to be able to distinct between constants and variables.

It has also been pointed out on previous posts, that trusting the external opinions of others can be as harmful as rash judgements based on your own observations.

-v

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by xelamental

 

Your point is valid to a certain degree, but that has already been inquired in previous posts on this thread. I am not implying that you should read them all through before answering, just pointing out the fact.

But I can revise it shortly: Basically quick judgement of individual observation can lead to illusions and miscontemplations (as we see to happen all around us), but trusting on subjective experiences requires careful observation, a constant vigilance to be able to distinct between constants and variables.

It has also been pointed out on previous posts, that trusting the external opinions of others can be as harmful as rash judgements based on your own observations.

-v

As a mentalist, I don't even trust my own senses now that I know how easily I can be fooled. The only things we can know are those things that are able to be replicated under controlled conditions. But even then we do not know anything; knowledge as I term it is a state of being "less likely to be wrong".

I want to be as less wrong about reality as I can, and the only reliable way to do that is to discard subjective experience and rely on the scientific method.

Originally posted by xelamental
I want to be as less wrong about reality as I can, and the only reliable way to do that is to discard subjective experience and rely on the scientific method.

So you are doing the scientific experiments by yourself or are you perhaps believing in the word of scientists that can be almost as treacherous than preachers? In fact, todays people are 'believing' in science; they read 'scientific publications' believing them to be accurate and truthful. Sure, most of them are peered, but there is a human beings sitting behind the boards, and most publications people read are commercial enterprises.

I am not accusing you of it; I am merely pointing out the fact, that science can be also perverted to the purposes of those who want to lie. If you have followed the 'climate research e-mail' incident, you would know what I am referring to.

The critical mind is hard to fool if it can remain objective and even be suspicous towards it's own conceptions. Therefore, the critical subjective observation is the only thing I trust.

Originally posted by xelamental
As a mentalist, I don't even trust my own senses now that I know how easily I can be fooled.

One might ask: What do you trust, if not even to your own observations?

-v

[edit on 25-11-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by v01i0

So you are doing the scientific experiments by yourself or are you perhaps believing in the word of scientists that can be almost as treacherous than preachers? In fact, todays people are 'believing' in science; they read 'scientific publications' believing in them accurate and truthful. Sure, most of them are peered, but there is a human beings sitting behind the boards, and most publications people read are commercial enterprises.

Sorry to step in and interject my opinion in the middle of your discussion; I half agree with this statement. On one hand, we can't or at least shouldn't 'appeal to authority' as a sole basis for reality unless we verify the 'truths' being claimed as such. On the other hand, the peer review process does exist in order to stem any bogus claims or research being purported as true and valid, it forces those claims to be verified. Yet, on one foot *ran out of hands*, I agree that the peer review process can be faulty at times if a group of researchers are all trying to aim for the same goal despite any contrary evidence to their goal.

I suppose in any case, whatever personal beliefs we have are only out of faith unless we have personally verified those beliefs through our own unbiased research and have had that unbiased research verified by all people.

I am not accusing you of it; I am merely pointing out the fact, that science can be also perverted to the purposes of those who want to lie. If you have followed the 'climate research e-mail' incident, you would know what I am referring to.

Wouldn't this fall under the same problems of the 'scientific publications'? How accurate are those claimed e-mails? We have one 'hacker' claiming to have obtained these e-mails that show climate change isn't occurring or at least not being caused by humankind's activities.

My personal experience and previous examples of human activities would seem to indicate that this is wrong. Where I live has been receiving less and less snow, and the winter seasons are getting warmer. We also have tangible evidence that human activities are capable of causing environmental damages over a quick period of time, we lost a decent sizable amount of our ozone layer with CFCs and the hole left in the atmosphere is still there.

We also have to look at the obvious side of it, pumping poisons into the environment in large quantities is not healthy. Whether it truly is effecting us now or not is moot, as it *will* eventually build up and effect future generations. If they are lying about climate issues now, I say good, let them. If scare mongering is the only way to curb blatant disrespect for our only planet capable of sustaining life as we know it, then we *need* that scare mongering.

The critical mind is hard to fool if it can remain objective and even be suspicous towards it's own conceptions. Therefore, the critical subjective observation is the only thing I trust.

I agree we have to think and observe our subjective experiences critically, but I disagree that even with a critical eye on the subjective experiences that they would ever amount to any accurate depiction of reality as it exists for all things in the universe. Not all thing's to our knowledge is capable of subjective experience, so subjectivity is not a fundamental truth for all things, ergo it shouldn't be utilized to describe reality for all things.

reply to post by v01i0

Yes, for sure it works that way around also. Perhaps the certain equilibrium is the best approach to maintain the peace of mind: To trust one's personal experiences, while carefully comparing them to the those of others and to reality in general.

I'm not even sure if that is really possible. Let's take a modest group of just four individuals; Two of them have subjective personal experiences that validate the existence of a deity for those two and the other two have subjective personal experiences that invalidate the existence of a deity.

If the two who have the subjective experience for a deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that, yes, a deity exists.

If the two who have the subjective experience for no deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that no deity exists.

Yet put all four together and no amount of previous comparisons will ever lead to a conclusive truth or fundamental aspect of reality. The experience of the entire group becomes contradictory and invalid as both can't logically be correct.

The majority of people alive now all believe in the one Christian God and their collective experiences prove this reality to them, but this wasn't always the case in our past history. Before monotheism was invented and came to power, the collective personal experiences dictated there were many Gods. So which experiences that collectively agree is more correct? The older first conception of religious deities or the newer one that is currently accepted as accurate?

Understood and agreed. Perhaps the objectivity is gained through the careful inquiry of subjective experiences. Perhaps it is best to guestion all and everything, as you mentioned before. But then again, there is the chance of pit-fall of constant uncertainty, which can end up in total indecisiveness. It truly is a narrow path, almost comparable to the rope-dancing, which Nietzche so vividly desciped in his Thus spoke Zarathustra.

I agree, it can lead to total indecisiveness, but I think only to the degree if we keep thinking we have to have all the answers to reality right now, right away, this minute. If we exercise patience and reserve judgment, wouldn't we be on a better path to discovering what reality is rather than focusing on contradictory biased personal experiences?

11:11 is an interesting phenomena considering the issue at hand. It might be that the subjective mind sees what it is inclined to see, thus disregarding - as you properly pointed out - the multitude of other times it perceives during the day.

I disagree that it's an interesting phenomena. I've experienced it myself the day I posted that. I saw 11:11 a few times within one minute. 11:11 on three separate clocks; But then I saw 11:12 after. Then 11:13; And so on.

In the end, questioning oneself, one's motives, emotions, observations and so forth might just be the best way to maintain objectivity; it is almost like seeing oneself from a 'higher perspective'.

I think what we discover of reality might be different than what we currently think because honestly a lot of what we're studying now we're just starting to really get into. Everything is still in it's infantile stage of knowing, but if we dispense with biased blind beliefs, personal experiences, and assumptions of what *must* be true, then we'll be on a better path of learning to understand our universe and reality itself.

reply to post by sirnex

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by v01i0

 

Originally posted by v01i0
If you have followed the 'climate research e-mail' incident, you would know what I am referring to.

Originally posted by sirnex
Wouldn't this fall under the same problems of the 'scientific publications'? How accurate are those claimed e-mails? We have one 'hacker' claiming to have obtained these e-mails that show climate change isn't occurring or at least not being caused by humankind's activities.

It seems that the e-mails were real, as no one of involved scientist (as far as I know) have stepped forward accusing that the e-mails were fraudulent.

But I don't disagree with the whole climate change thing. It is here as well as you pointed out: The weather is as well more warm than normally.

Originally posted by v01i0
The critical mind is hard to fool if it can remain objective and even be suspicous towards it's own conceptions. Therefore, the critical subjective observation is the only thing I trust.

Originally posted by sirnex
I agree we have to think and observe our subjective experiences critically, but I disagree that even with a critical eye on the subjective experiences that they would ever amount to any accurate depiction of reality as it exists for all things in the universe. Not all thing's to our knowledge is capable of subjective experience, so subjectivity is not a fundamental truth for all things, ergo it shouldn't be utilized to describe reality for all things.

Earlier today I was reading your post about the universe and it's origins and was inclined to reply until I realized that I have nothing to contribute except the "I agree" statement, which I found irrelevant. But I have to say (about that thread) that I have similar thoughts about that matter.

In the reply I was considering to give you, I was about to mention my individual experience about this particular matter, which I later regarded to be a little egocentric and deleted it (among with the rest of the post). But since this issue promted up here, I might as well share it - and please bear in mind, it has nothing do with self-emphasis. But when I was on elementary, on lower classes (which one, I can't recall) I came up with a 'theory' that universe is eternal, and the matter in it is constant; the stars are born out of gas clouds and again, the black holes are ripping them apart, spraying fine matter accross the universe to be formed again later as gas clouds (due the weak gravitional force that is present in all particles), eventually forming as stars - as well as other objects as well - once again. To this date - about 20 years later - I find it hard to believe that the mind of a child could come up with such conclusion. And for certain, I didn't know much about universe back then.

Regardless, I did have some information to build upon. In school, I had been told about the stars, planets, space and black holes, and perhaps also about the big bang. I have to say, that I neither am a big fan of big bang, rather I think that all this happens gradually, yet I cannot tell whether universe is eternal, I can only suspect so. Also, I can't really tell that there are black holes in factuality, this is something that is second-hand information for me, meaning that there is no way for me to observe them.

But before I get derailed, let us get back to topic again. I do agree that with just our personal observations, we are might not be able to get far in finding out about the nature of universe. In the end, you can trust observations of others, after you had carefully evaluated their credibility, as you stated:

Originally posted by sirnex
Sorry to step in and interject my opinion in the middle of your discussion; I half agree with this statement. On one hand, we can't or at least shouldn't 'appeal to authority' as a sole basis for reality unless we verify the 'truths' being claimed as such. On the other hand, the peer review process does exist in order to stem any bogus claims or research being purported as true and valid, it forces those claims to be verified. Yet, on one foot *ran out of hands*, I agree that the peer review process can be faulty at times if a group of researchers are all trying to aim for the same goal despite any contrary evidence to their goal.

No need for apologies, you have been part of the conversation from the begin. One has to be spider to be sufficient in limbs

Anyways, it is safe to agree upon that no matter whether the information is internal (subjective observations) or external (observations of others), one has to critically evaluate it individually, and not to trust "authorities".

-v

reply to post by sirnex


Right now I don't have time to give you a proper reply your post deserves. But what you said about those four persons in the beginning of your post, has point.

Should we then think that consesus on certain issues is impossibility? Perhaps no. With proper work of sciences and objective observation such is in limits of possibility, but then again we see a lot of those people who are willing to believe any fairy tale that comes accross.

Anyway, I gotta run - might give a further reply once I'll get back.

-v

reply to post by v01i0

It seems that the e-mails were real, as no one of involved scientist (as far as I know) have stepped forward accusing that the e-mails were fraudulent.

But I don't disagree with the whole climate change thing. It is here as well as you pointed out: The weather is as well more warm than normally.

So far they haven't, yet they might not bother even if the e-mails were not true. I personally wouldn't waste taking time away from solving a climate issue because some hacker claimed I was lying. It's a matter of priority, but like I said, even if they were lying, it's probably a good thing they did so.

Earlier today I was reading your post about the universe and it's origins and was inclined to reply until I realized that I have nothing to contribute except the "I agree" statement, which I found irrelevant. But I have to say (about that thread) that I have similar thoughts about that matter.

I have that same problem, usually if I agree with something I don't bother posting as there isn't really anything of substance beyond 'I agree'. A lot of people I talk to on ATS point out that it appears I only argue, but debating something is really the only thing that gives a decent post with meat on it lol. Last thing I would want to see is a thread full of 'I agree', back patting and ego stroking lol.

In the reply I was considering to give you, I was about to mention my individual experience about this particular matter, which I later regarded to be a little egocentric and deleted it (among with the rest of the post). But since this issue promted up here, I might as well share it - and please bear in mind, it has nothing do with self-emphasis. But when I was on elementary, on lower classes (which one, I can't recall) I came up with a 'theory' that universe is eternal, and the matter in it is constant; the stars are born out of gas clouds and again, the black holes are ripping them apart, spraying fine matter accross the universe to be formed again later as gas clouds (due the weak gravitional force that is present in all particles), eventually forming as stars - as well as other objects as well - once again. To this date - about 20 years later - I find it hard to believe that the mind of a child could come up with such conclusion. And for certain, I didn't know much about universe back then.

At this moment, all I can consider is that the universe might be eternal. All other theories I've seen are based off the biased beliefs that all things have a beginning and an end, which makes sense at first considering that is what we deal with throughout our lives. Yet the two most prominent universe had a beginning theory are both solely based upon assumptions that haven't been fully proven to be one hundred percent fact yet.

Regardless, I did have some information to build upon. In school, I had been told about the stars, planets, space and black holes, and perhaps also about the big bang. I have to say, that I neither am a big fan of big bang, rather I think that all this happens gradually, yet I cannot tell whether universe is eternal, I can only suspect so. Also, I can't really tell that there are black holes in factuality, this is something that is second-hand information for me, meaning that there is no way for me to observe them.

I have a big problem with black holes myself too, I'm not sure if they've actually been observed and I've read some theories that describe the same effects without these seemingly physics defying objects.

Anyways, it is safe to agree upon that no matter whether the information is internal (subjective observations) or external (observations of others), one has to critically evaluate it individually, and not to trust "authorities".

I think we all need to first agree upon some base fundamentals that are true for all things.

Originally posted by v01i0
reply to post by sirnex

 

Right now I don't have time to give you a proper reply your post deserves. But what you said about those four persons in the beginning of your post, has point.

Should we then think that consesus on certain issues is impossibility? Perhaps no. With proper work of sciences and objective observation such is in limits of possibility, but then again we see a lot of those people who are willing to believe any fairy tale that comes accross.

Anyway, I gotta run - might give a further reply once I'll get back.

-v

I think all things are open to being possible, but that any such possibility shouldn't be blindly believed as being actual unless it's a reality for all things. In the case of the previous example, the reality of a deity was only true for two individuals capable of subjective experience, but what of a rock? Yet when I discussed that with my wife she pointed out that if a rock isn't capable of subjectively experiencing a deity then a rock isn't equally capable of subjectively experiencing us either. It just makes me wonder what is subjective experience and how does it arise and whether a rock has the capacity for it and if not, then subjectivity isn't a fundamental aspect for all things. If subjectivity isn't fundamentally true of all things in reality, then how accurate can it truly be?

What we experience isn't the same reality a rock might experience if it is capable of experience.

I don't know, the whole subjective verses objective just seems all too confusing to me right now to such a point that I'm not sure what reality is anymore. Especially with all these conflicting viewpoints that exist today. In my opinion, reality must be real for all things that exist as all things appear to equally exist along with us.

reply to post by sirnex


Well, the reality for one is the reality it experiences. It may be that it isn't the objective reality, but the a portrayal of it, interpret in subjective way. I think I have to sit down in the dust - again - and conclude that I don't know anything about the nature of reality. Or that is all I know. But I intend to find out!

But as we as human beings can share some objective reality, I mean that we all can see the birds flying in the sky and trees of the forest and so on. It has to be real at least to us, the human beings. But then, is there anything else than this table I am sitting and typing this; are there - for example - occult energies that some people can manipulate and others cannot?

I don't know, and I am not sure whether I care. I've had some experiences and I've done my best to explain them in mundane means, without caving into all that religious stuff and believing. In the process I've become to know some of my reality at least; I don't know about the realities of others tho; maybe they really see the goblins running on the streets and angels appearing between the clouds now and then?

Well, being now somewhat tired I think it just better go to sleep and leave the physical reality for a while and enter the fancy world of dreams.

-v

reply to post by v01i0

Well, the reality for one is the reality it experiences. It may be that it isn't the objective reality, but the a portrayal of it, interpret in subjective way. I think I have to sit down in the dust - again - and conclude that I don't know anything about the nature of reality. Or that is all I know. But I intend to find out!

I agree that the experiences people perceive are real for them, just not that they are real for all things in reality. It's from all these previous discussions about subjectivity versus objectivity that forced me to think about the two a little more critically and logically. Subjectivity can't be ultimately logical and true for all things, and as such can't be used to accurately describe reality. But I suppose it might be possible that objectivity doesn't exist and all that exists is subjectivity as objectivity is inherently a subjective experience of sorts. Yet then I think about things that exist and are unable to experience reality and wonder, are they real despite not being able to subjectively experiencing their realness? Then I start thinking that subjectivity is usually only described from a humanized viewpoint, we don't take into account the subjective experience of reality for other living species capable of experiencing reality, which leads me to conclude that objectivity *must* be real because we can't humanize experience and deem it a valid truth for all living things.

The whole aspect of trying to discover what reality is, is just too damn confusing lol.

But as we as human beings can share some objective reality, I mean that we all can see the birds flying in the sky and trees of the forest and so on. It has to be real at least to us, the human beings. But then, is there anything else than this table I am sitting and typing this; are there - for example - occult energies that some people can manipulate and others cannot?

I wonder too if there are some out there who can, but every attempt to 'prove' such abilities are generally falsified or inconclusive. For now I'm of the opinion on the issue other that most cases appear to be coincidences.

I don't know, and I am not sure whether I care. I've had some experiences and I've done my best to explain them in mundane means, without caving into all that religious stuff and believing. In the process I've become to know some of my reality at least; I don't know about the realities of others tho; maybe they really see the goblins running on the streets and angels appearing between the clouds now and then?

I've seen UFO's before, one that sticks out the most prominently is a triangular craft that shot straight up near some woods behind my house and then appeared to crash, immediately after I saw a stream of light moving directly on the train tracks with things working inside this light on something.

For years I deemed this a real experience until it dawned on me that I utterly forgot that I had just watch an alien movie that same night. Chances are and the most simplest answer is that it was just a vivid dream that I remembered very clearly. I've only had two such kinds of vivid dream like that afterward when I was a teen.

Another experience was when I was dabbling with voodoo spells with a friend. We both didn't like this kid in our neighborhood so we made a voodoo doll and cast some death spells. About a half hour later we saw the kid and he was sick as hell. I got scared because I believed he was dying from our voodoo doll, so I destroyed it. A couple hours after that I had learned that he was sick all morning, before we even made the doll.

So even though I've had my fair share of experiences, and these two aren't the only one's; I'm starting to realize that personal experience is about as powerful as pretending to know by faith alone.

Well, being now somewhat tired I think it just better go to sleep and leave the physical reality for a while and enter the fancy world of dreams.

Hopefully you can remember your dreams, I rarely ever remember mine and only those few very vividly.

Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by xelamental
I want to be as less wrong about reality as I can, and the only reliable way to do that is to discard subjective experience and rely on the scientific method.

So you are doing the scientific experiments by yourself or are you perhaps believing in the word of scientists that can be almost as treacherous than preachers? In fact, todays people are 'believing' in science; they read 'scientific publications' believing them to be accurate and truthful. Sure, most of them are peered, but there is a human beings sitting behind the boards, and most publications people read are commercial enterprises.

Time has shown that all papers have errors in them. But as the field progresses, we eliminate more and more error. Experiments get replicated, knowledge gets improved. Frauds are found out, mistakes are uncovered. So what? The only alternative is to believe in nothing, or worse, believe in stuff people make up "look at me im magic!".

I am not accusing you of it; I am merely pointing out the fact, that science can be also perverted to the purposes of those who want to lie. If you have followed the 'climate research e-mail' incident, you would know what I am referring to.

Well, the truth of climate change will come out with time. Rather than repeat every experiment, I trust those working in the field. They will always get found out if they are indeed fraudulent, as has been shown. Science in action!

The critical mind is hard to fool if it can remain objective and even be suspicous towards it's own conceptions. Therefore, the critical subjective observation is the only thing I trust.

Makes sense, but this is how most scientists approach scientific papers you know? I dive straight into the methods section, look for warning signs... etc. I'm skeptical of a lot of science, but that's the whole point: I can't do everything, so I have to trust in something. I trust in the method, as has been shown over the last hundred years to dramatically increase our understanding of reality.

Originally posted by xelamental
As a mentalist, I don't even trust my own senses now that I know how easily I can be fooled.

One might ask: What do you trust, if not even to your own observations?
[edit on 25-11-2009 by v01i0]

You can't trust your own observations; spend an afternoon with me and you will know why

I trust the slow gathering of knowledge along with my own critical thought about the research as a whole. I'm on the fence with global warming. I am not an expert enough to make an informed decision, so I'll trust the consensus view until more convincing data is available. I definitely won't trust the oil companies given their past history.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by xelamental]

reply to post by sirnex


It's not about having faith it's about having trust.

Do you have faith in someone to do something because of the past? No it's trust, do you not have trust in that first spark of awareness?

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
reply to post by sirnex

 

It's not about having faith it's about having trust.

Do you have faith in someone to do something because of the past? No it's trust, do you not have trust in that first spark of awareness?

In my opinion it's more about faith than trust and no amount of straw man tactics will detract me from that opinion.

If we claim a created universe, it's not trust in that creator as there is no amount of past evidence that we can point to that suggests this explicit creator. All previous subsequent creators are many, not singular. There are no previous examples of thing's like the biblical God and equally no previous examples of your concept of all things being from one creator. It's not trust, it's faith that this is true.

I don't accept faith based evidence.

If you truly believe something, its real for you. When it stops being real for you, you can't believe it anymore. Therefore at root the two are one. There may be some lag time between adjustment in terms of the human mind processing the relationships of these two modes of perception, but ultimately they are two sides to the same coin.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by Never Despise]

reply to post by sirnex

Originally posted by sirnex
The whole aspect of trying to discover what reality is, is just too damn confusing lol.

Agreed, all this pondering about the nature of knowledge can be rather confusing. Since we've been inquiring this matter for some time now, I tend to end up with the conclusions that one has to suspect everything, even our own perceptions, as we all (me, you and xelamental) have suggested.

Originally posted by sirnex
So even though I've had my fair share of experiences, and these two aren't the only one's; I'm starting to realize that personal experience is about as powerful as pretending to know by faith alone.

Interesting experiences and a fair point. Hence it may be best to be constantly vigilant about any kind of experiences, be they internal or external. As pointed out, the faith is a extreme type of subjective experience - or I don't know if it's even an experience, but a some kind of hypothesis, that one is inclined to believe in.

Originally posted by sirnex
Hopefully you can remember your dreams, I rarely ever remember mine and only those few very vividly.

There was a time that I didn't recall many of my dreams. In fact, it has been suggested by various authors (like C.G Jung and J.Krishnamurti) that seeing a lot of dreams can be a sign of certain imbalance with one's consciousness and subconsciousness. Then again, certain things we eat and some substances one may acquire, can affect this also - in either direction.

C.G Jung suggests that the remembrance of the dreams is not necessarily the the sign of such imbalance - but the possible imbalance is rather determined from the quality of the dreams. For example, the appearance of the shadow can, according to Jung, tell a lot about the relationship between one consciousness and subconsciousness.

J.Krishnamurti claims that the real individual doesn't dream at all - to his sleep is real rest, without dreams, because the one is so profoundly conscious of his daily actions, that the consciousness (or rather the subconsciousness) need not to arrange daily events in prefered order during the dreams

Recently I have been able to remember more dreams, basically (I suppose) because I have really put effort to this matter. In the mornings, I try to remember about the dreams as much as I can, and I have noticed that this capability is getting constantly better. I have also put effort to be as conscious as possible of my daily activities; basically, this is the kind of meditation, that Krishnamurti considers to be only kind of meditation, rest is fantasizing and willful activity, where one tries quiet one's mind forcefully.

In practice, I have noticed a certain change in the pattern of my dreams. I haven't seen a nightmare - a type of a distressing dream - for a quite some time.

OK, forgive me for I drifted away from the matter again, and I have to reply xela's post also.

-v

reply to post by xelamental


Some fair points are made throughout your post, especially those considering the nature of science and it's self corrective capability. There is this process of auto-observation going on science, but it is not infallible as is the case with individual experience also.

Originally posted by xelamental
You can't trust your own observations; spend an afternoon with me and you will know why

I'd like to, really I do, just to see what you could do. But I think it's not possible, because I don't know where you live, and quite likely there would be some distance between our locations. But if you are capable enough, you can find out where I live (approximately) and tell me if you live close enough for me to pay a visit

Well, while not disregarding your capabilites as a mentalist - which you keep emphasizing - I think I have gained some kind of resistance against mental mingling due to my life, that you could hardly be able to mess up with my mind. But then again, who knows? But how would you mentalize someone who suspects even one own observations and have a lack of faith in anything, and that critisizes even the sources which others hold in most highest regard? I think it would require effort even from Wolf Messing.

I tend to not trust in anything, but my own observations are most fundamental factors that I can trust, after I have given them good consideration that is.

I rather trust myself than authorities. I certainly don't trust you

-v

[edit on 26-11-2009 by v01i0]