romansh

If you mean all four paragraphs? No.

Just happened across this today ... the video complement has just recently been edited and released https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/# From a naturalist's point of view. Note the sections on reality and meaning ... plus others.

To whom? The request was for you to learn to use the quote function. Personally, I dislike a wall of text especially when it is full of complicated and perhaps ill defined terms. But good, you seem to have run out of questions thormas. How do you form your beliefs?

You can break down the key bit ... or or the whole lot. Your method that you like is awkward for the reader.

Also to add. At least on my computer when I highlight a bit of text ... I get a black quote box saying quote selection. And clicking on that, easily allows quoting. Though at times it can be a little messy, but most of the time is fine.

Carefully - by using different methods of perception, repeating, seeing if predictions corroborate the model. Saying something is not accurate is in itself not accurate. Could there be shades of accuracy. Remember ... our perceptions are reflections of the universe. When you look in a mirror the reflection is backwards left to right. Yes as far as I can tell the universe is real. But someone could go all solipsistic on us and claim some form of idealism on us. Here you seem to confound again ... everything is real. Even our illusions are real. Everything is as it is. We don't 'know'. How did we work out my kitchen chair is not actually red? And again we go round in circles - agnosticism. But we can tentatively put forward models, hypotheses, theories of the universe on a pedestal and take a piñata bat to them. This is the essence of the process of science. The universe is ... as far as I can tell. The chair by definition is a construct ... I could go all Matrix on you ... there is no spoon. The spoon and chair are not made up spoon and chair parts. They are atoms arranged in a particular way as are trees and cats. Sure chairs and spoons have been shaped by human kind, which in turn have been shaped by evolution. And evolution is product of the universe. No intention [you seem to be pointing to intent] here as far as we can tell. And when we talk of our own intentions, this is a confabulation. And at this point the discussion will devolve into consciousness. Yes, nature abhors a vacuum. The Universe from Nothing youtube would be one place to start, Hawking and Mlodinow's The Grand Design gives us an insight how a universe might come into existence. But end of the day this is irrelevant to the immediate problem. Well theists argue what is the first cause for this universe ... the answer obviously being God. Physicalists argue the nothing is the first cause. Nothing [as in vacuum] is unstable. Interestingly we can measure properties of nothing eg the Casimir effect and compare them to theoretical predictions. But these are all hypotheses and should be taken with a pinch of salt. Especially further back we go in the causal chain.

No, everything is not an illusion ... our perception of everything is not as it seems. But we can understand the universe to varying degrees of accuracy. So saying everything is an illusion is perhaps a careless short hand. Einstein ... gave us relativity and the peculiar behaviours of time. Hawking the peculiar behaviour of nothing. Existence I assume is real. It's our perception of it that is problematic. When we go to a magic show, the attractive assistant and disappearing tiger are 'real'. Our perception of them has been fooled. You confound not being real and not being as it seems. Apparently continually ... Not believing in things that are real and believing in unreal things could be considered as delusional (unmentionable). Science gives descriptions of what is observed. It also tell us what is not so. But to be fair scientists sometimes go further. What is behind reality, four fundamental forces that we have observed and matter. Do we need more? It may seem like faith ... but not by my definition. Here's my picture of understanding it is like a balloon. The stuff inside we 'know or understand' Outside of the balloon is stuff yet to be learnt. The surface of the balloon is what we understand that we don't understand. As the balloon inflates our lack of understanding also increases. Job security for scientists. Are you asking how we do this constructing or what is the purpose. We are not building a universe. The how is ultimately evolution. And for me the mystery is how come molecules replicate. We can see they do. As Sagan said ... We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. Disagree with the word know but I get his drift. I really wish you could get the hang of the quote function.

I never said non-physical ... in a sense things like concepts are physical or at least we always find them written large in the physical. I never quite said this either. Meaning I suspect will too be more illusion. But yes let leave it aside for the moment. Not with total accuracy but it guides us. Seeing includes our senses, telescopes and the like. Logic, science and the like are what enables understanding. What is understanding? It is ultimately like a predictive capability. We can predict how the universe will unfold, and again this is to varying degrees of accuracy. What is science's understanding ... not sure I understand the question. Something can be real and not be as it seems. It is statements like this that lead me to think you seem to think of illusion as closer to something unmentionable. Take my kitchen chair it is red. Yet every bit of science tells me that the chair is not physically red but the redness is a construction of my brain. Reality is not as it seems. Our senses are limited. Imperfectly ... and hence my agnosticism. But I am also forced to move forward and I seem to do it on a basis of what can be made sense of.

You plainly missed the point of the parable. Which is surprising. Try listening to what the farmer is saying maybe to. ? The universe. Do you mean definition or purpose? Or unless do you mean (define) what's it all about? You do really seem to mean purpose. Beats me, if the answer at the macro level also at the sub meso level. I can't see planetary systems or bacteria as such having purpose or what's it all about. At the meso level we seem to concoct meaning and purpose, because we are caused to do so. It's one of those contingent thingies in both senses of the word. But if the zero energy universe hypothesis is true, then the answer to what is it all about? is nothing. Enjoy the illusionary free lunch. The reality is the universe and understanding of the relevant science and logic are what enables . Yes it is the universe. Seen more clearly ... perhaps with these developing scientific tools yes? Known no. Understood yes.

Your turn to answer the question and then I will answer yours.

I can only see a pale reflection of reality. But I use that reflection to identify bits that are illusory. What is real as opposed to reality? What do you mean by real as opposed to reality how are they different? Also there are two levels to these types of questions, I can't help but find. One is the everyday pragmatic aspects and then there is the more scientific or philosophic aspects. I try to make sure they match as much as possible in my everyday activities. But pragmatically - reality is what makes sense. All is illusion ... As to meaningless ... perhaps. By meaning do you mean purpose? What's the purpose of atom's? What's the purpose of a brain? Here we confabulate. The concept of meaning exists ... but it is an illusion. We have to conjure up deities or give ourselves magical properties to have some divine meaning. Not quite what I said ... again. Sometimes these Eastern traditions reflect the way I see the world eg dependent origination, sometimes they don't. eg free will, reincarnation. An example where it makes sense: Now it is definitely your turn ... in this pragmatic way.

I can believe that. ? Your turn to actually answer a question or two.

While I like Campbell ... I don't by and large buy in. I have read a lot his stuff. Though he is more into the Eastern traditions .... which to my mind are more sensible. But ... no I was referring to what you wrote.

If we call God ... what we don't know what we are talking about, then fine. You will have no argument from me. I'll be a little skeptical about that one too. But to me it is not God; but whatever it is, it is dressed up in flowery language. A hypothesis that is not helpful in any meaningful way.

Surely it was eleven?

Sad.

Joseph Campbell ... a great theological thinker.

To me these two statements are contradictory ... the substrate effectively is the universe so how could it not be part of the universe? Frankly this does not make sense to me. Plain language please. Your use of ontological does not make sense. Are concepts objects? Are concepts within the scope of scientific inquiry? Does God have an effect in this universe. If "yes" then God is subject to inquiry. If no then God is totally irrelevant. That is how the word is used. Most dictionaries claim that the etymology of the word comes Latin Re Ligare ... re has the common English use, again and ligare is connect as in ligament or ligand. The question reconnect to what? Society, community church, nature, the universe? Then why do we insist on a upper case G? And can you show me the working as to how we get to this point? I don't think they are disregarding the difference, they are just hoping for a discussion based on some rational basis. Otherwise we throw in a few ontologicals and epistemologicals for good measure and quote good theological thinkers who have thought about that which cannot be thought about or at least any conclusion they may come to is without basis ... ie stuff that is not part of this universe.

Then treat the word illusion as not as it seems And I won't need to give examples of the unmentionable. It would appear "God" is not an object; but we still can comment on?

What did you think of Krauss's A Universe from Nothing? where the sum total of energy in the universe is hypothesised to be zero. Interesting no?

I am thanks. The agitation you sensed was an illusion on your part. So post modernism rules. So when I point out the illogic you use (an opinion admittedly) there is no problem. Good. Double down? Really I tried to walk away from my comment yet you insisted a few times on an explanation. Really thormas. I was giving an example of what might be considered on bordering on delusion. I left to the reader to which side it is. Plainly you think of it as delusional. Interesting? I don't care what modern writers think. I was thinking of a nice lady (my opinion) who demonstrated her ability. I sat through the episode politely and expressed my doubt politely. There was no point on pressing the issue. Again it is you who pressed for an explanation ... I tried to walk away. You still are pressing. Opinion? Based on evidence. Based on assertion. But are we using it to the full? Are we ignoring the way the universe appears to tick.? But there is evidence against Gods if we give them properties like loving. There is no evidence against Roman and Norse Gods. Really? Quite. But is there evidence? Then it becomes more than just opinion. If everything is opinion and belief can be discounted as that, then why on Earth express your opinion? Are all opinions equally invalid? This is a debate and discussion forum. If we are simply going to stick to our opinions no matter how much contrary evidence is brought to bear, and we simply discount the evidence and effectively say ... there is no evidence for what I believe and that is OK. This is OK as a personal belief but in a debate and discussion forum?

Note these are not questions Thormas ... For the most part assertions. For example: Depending on the context possibly true. Do you believe two people can hold diametrically opposing views and at least one of them is not mistaken? The delusional comment is pure nonsense. But certainly I do think certain views are bordering on the delusions. eg the ability to speak in tongues is one of the milder ones. To be clear ... I did not say they [people] were delusional. Yes science is limited ... but it [scientific method] is a really good method to test our intuitions. Again you will have to explain ... unconditional reality ... if you mean bits of the universe that don't respond to cause and effect, then I am at a loss unless you are referring to a universe where there is no cause and effect. And that too has some implications. Where did I call anyone deluded? I think certain positions are deluded. Possibly some of mine. But I can put a rational argument for most of mine. For example saying God is Love. And God is in everything. One has to jump through tortuous pathways and exclusions to try and make any sense of it. If we look at the evidence, the evidence is against such propositions. I also understand that the positions we hold can be extensions of ourselves sometimes very deeply held extensions. Now I can see how someone might come to such a position and whether that position is deluded is in the eye of the beholder and to some degree a semantic debate.

Which question? ... I searched the question marks and replied to them.

Perhaps ... it appears you missed my two points too. Yes I have views about certain opinions. Don't you? My second point ... there appears to be a contradiction between separateness and "contingent reality".

cf You seem to believe in separateness yet you think ... every-thing, every object - is dependent.