romansh

Just curious ... how do we come to form beliefs? My personal opinion (based on evidence ?) is that we are physical beings and that we are strongly influenced by our environment and that our substrate (matter, molecules, atoms, fields, fundamental forces, etc) does the rest. For me consciousness does not hold primacy. For example ... I suspect most here at one point or another held a literal belief (perhaps still do) that Jesus was born of a virgin. How did we come to this belief and how did we lose it, if we did? Personally I don't recall ever believing this. I personally can't give a mechanism for not believing this, but I sure can confabulate one.

Perhaps it should be written ... of course opinion (dare I say belief?) based on evidence. And that brings us back to ... how do you form your beliefs thormas? You have had plenty of time to think about it. Patriotism is writ large in a substrate ... like all other concepts! You won't find it outside of the substrate. ... the way we have evolved to encounter and experience reality - as it seems to us ... I think would be more accurate. This of course is the disadvantage of not referencing the bit of text that is being discussed. I am sure you can find where you have discussed false in your recent posts.

Thormas ... And now would be a good time for you to have a go at answering my question. You have had time to think about it.

The problem with using consciousness (should it exist) to determine what is real, is that we have put the fox in charge of the hen house. For example were you aware that you are effectively blind for approximately two hours a day during our waking hours. Yet consciousness presents a continuous stream. Obviously this is for very short bursts and I am not referring to blinking either. There are no end of experiments to suggest we should be very wary of our consciousness. Human being are confabulators extraordinaire. When you present evidence for the non-physical I will consider it. The problem here is of course, if the non-physical interacts reliably with the physical it is immediately subsumed in the physical. But as yet we have no evidence for the non-physical. Waiting with baited breath. While using the word illusion might be scary to some, and in that sense not helpful; but it might be eye opening and helpful in that sense. That you don't spend much time on examining reality and its illusory nature is fair enough. But the word makes one think. Noise is like colour ... an illusion. For example I have tinnitus ... is that noise? Noise itself is a product of the brain. Evolution has given an exquisite mechanism to sense rapidly changing pressures in the air. Just think rapidly changing air pressure, is converted to mechanical movement in the middle ear and which is converted to electrical stimuli in the inner ear. And converted to what we call sound in the brain. I am sure there will be other creatures in the forest that are sensitive to rapidly changing air pressure. We do have a sense of what is false. If you are agnostic about the world being flat, more power to you; but if you are, you are, I see little point in discussing science with you. If you think I have said we cannot determine falseness, then you have not understood what I have been trying to say. Came across this today.

I have mentioned solipsism, have I not? Yes I have faith the universe is real. I have no way that I can certify it is real. There are idealists who claim it is not real. Some claim the moon is only real if it is being observed. Go figure. But our perception of it is. Agnosticism? Perhaps it is more accurate to say our perception of the universe is a reflection and not how we perceive it. Things like free will spring to mind. I must admit I find these theories hard to believe. It is easier to accept that consciousness is also illusionary.

9. Proceed carefully and agnostically.

Summary of my understanding of what I have said? I assume a universe exists. I have limited access to that universe in that my senses are limited. Consequently what I observe directly of the universe is incomplete. Looking at world more carefully using the scientific method our observations are more complete, but still incomplete. If we apply logic and science to our incomplete observations and our intuitive perceptions, we find that our intuitions about red kitchen chairs etc are not what they seem. So using similar processes to everything, we can say the contents of the universe are not what they seem. But nevertheless our perceptions are a reflection of the universe. And our new perceptions of the universe are more accurate as we use the scientific method ... but still likely wrong.

Then which bit or bits is it what I am supposed to mean?

It was sincere. Do you want me to dissect each sentence?

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.