Well excuse me Billy but this whole thread was started by Creative after he commented on a statement that I made on another thread. In his statement he implied that my statement was ignorant, blatent, and extremely damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things.


My statement was simply:



Then He said:



Now you are trying to tell me that this subject is not about the fundamental nature of reality? It's not about reality and who determines reality?

Now you are telling me that I am not even part of this conversation when the whole thing was started by my simple statement that he proclaimed that he could easily disprove with "a normal second graders intellect?"

Have you even bothered to read anything I have contributed or asked on this very subject? Or did you, like everyone else, get lost and confused in the gobblie gook original post for this thread?

I know what is going on here but I don't think you do. But hey if you can't answer my question, and he can't answer it, and you guys only want to talk about concrete physical reality and what constitutes knowledge and what you think is "real" amongst yourselves with no challenges, then have at it. Empress each other with your vast knowledge.

jb

Then no body on this thread can tell me that their concrete reality is anything but their own perception and belief. Their facts are nothing more than an agreement between observers.

Yet they insist that theirs is real, true, fact, blah blah blah, and everyone else who has a different perspective is living in fantasy land.

So it is, so be it. Enjoy your illusions.

Are you serious, you are saying well James and Jeremy cant answer what makes reality real . . . so they are wrong about what makes something true. WHAAAA.

And you think that has what to do with the topic of knowledge and how it meets truth? . . . . sigh.

Look around you, pick up something, review its details, assign it a name, look around you, discover a new object review its details, are they the same as the first object?

This is the process, yes it evolves an observer, but that is where the comparison ends to anything you have talked thus far.

You really don't need to go any more fundamental then the electromagnetic spectrum, nor standard matter to describe this process.

Nothing mysterious or even at odds with common sense.

Then Creative, who seems to have dropped out of this conversation, has nothing to worry about and no reason to tell me that my philosophical statement is "ignorant" or "extremely damaging to society's ability to grow towards positive things."

Excuse me but I take that kind of "argument" as rude and insulting. (And then he recommends books to me on how to present arguments.)

He sounds like he wants to sensor and challenge ideas and imagination and philosophy and metaphysics because he thinks its ignorant and damaging.

He should just stick to concrete reality and stop trying to understand anything philosophical. But when someone challenges to disprove my statement with "second grade logic" I expect him to answer one simple question concerning my statement that he seeks to disprove.

If we (the observer) don't decide what is real, then who does?
I'm making a philosophical point here. I'm not trying to de-construct his concrete reality. And quite frankly I won't sit quietly while I'm being insulted.

End of story.

JB ASKED:

""If we (the observer) don't decide what is real, then who does?""


TRIBO REPLIES:

that which created us.

So your answer is basically "God" (or what ever you call the Prime creative source.)

That might be where an atheist would have a problem.

Atheist have problems??

do they have to go see an atheicologist?

The only diff, between an atheist and a believer in a creator is one has faith in faith and the other has no faith in faith - but they cant seem to see that they both have "faith".

WE are talking about HUMAN KNOWLEDGE...


*******HYDROGEN*******

*********DOES*********

*********NOT**********

*******OBSERVE********

Need I say more???????


Matter existed before life. That is a scientific fact. It is held as such because of the known structure of all things. All things begin with hydrogen, it is the common denominator, which is why it is at the bottom of the periodic table. Therefore, it very well must have existed before anything else that is made up of it, and that would be EVERYTHING. Without life there is no observer, THERE CAN BE NO OBSERVER. There are things that could be observed, commonly referred to as an object.

Now whomever chooses to disagree with this is not merely disagreeing with this author, they are disagreeing with every bit of the scientific and pragmatic knowledge that humans have accumulated over our existence.

The observer does not...CANNOT, create nor decide that which it is made from.

DUH

Ask for a metaphysics forum to play around in...

The computer in front of me is going to disappear right now, because I am going to decide that it is not real...



POOF!!!

Very well then.

Human knowledge is extremely limited.

TRIBO:

Could it be possible that there is or are beings that are not made up of matter but are purely spiritual? can you rule this out with certainty?

not trying to burst your bubble i don't think that's possible. but can a scientist even admit that there may be things that science is not aware of? If by chance you can or do give any credence to sciences thoughts on other dimensions and parallel universes and that they may not be anything like ours or made of the same substance - is it impossible for someone into the sciences not to at least keep that door of possibility open? just asking.

Actually, after your (rude) reply to my statement in the other thread, I was under the impression we were talking about what or who determines what is real. ~Not human knowledge.

You are very clearly a fundamental atheist, very sure of your convictions, who has probably never considered the possibility that a spiritual awareness might exist, or that "life" could exist at a different frequency than our own that does not require the substances that human life requires in this reality.

You state your scientific "knowledge" and facts about matter and how it existed before life and yet science has still not found the basic building block of matter. It appears that matter is mostly "empty space" when looking at an atom.

You stay inside of your science box and you tell me to ask for a metaphysical forum as if you feel you need to draw a bold line between the two. These kinds of lines drawn are drawn by closed minds.

When you confine the definition of "observer" to human beings and when you confine "the truth" to "human knowledge" you can just tie that up with a little bow and feel secure that you are right and everyone who thinks outside of that box is a lunatic.

There is new thread for Science and Philosophy. I wonder why they combined the two, since you think they should be completely separated.

I wish you really were more creative in your thinking. We might be able to understand each other a tad better.

Maybe science does need it's own forum, at least then they would not have to put up with us lowly educated people. wouldn't be many arguements either outside the proverbial box huh?

it's the first time i think i've encountered something that does not believe in faith/religion/god/etc, that is more religious than the christians in there dogma and beliefs - or so it seems anyway - i'll wait till CS replies.

I once belonged to a purely scientific chat room and they argued about scientific things, so it is not that all scientist agree completely. When I wanted scientific information I could find it on that forum. They loved to show everyone how much they knew.

TRIBO...



We could go on forever and a day contemplating what may be possible if what has already been observed concerning actuality were not true or were different in some way. What use would that be? There is a very well laid out argument against Intelligent Design called "The Flying Spaghetti Monster". If you have not read it, it may be of interest to you.



My bubble??? I am not sure where this originates.

You have been here long enough to have witnessed many conversations in which I have participated. If what I have written in the past has been processed through your own perceptual faculty and then a negative conclusion has been drawn concerning me, I am sorry. Know that factuality(facts regarding actuality) is completely independent of us both. The accurate understanding and conveyance of it is and always will be contingent upon our ability to know all of the relevant knowledge regarding the situation at hand.

I know myself, and I understand, realize, and fully accept the fact that I am one who will continually brush things like person insults aside. There have been more than enough personal remarks concerning the who of this author by those who do not and cannot know me. It takes time and continued remarks for someone to place me in a reactionary mode of ego, but it can be done. None of us are without need of improvement in some fashion, now are we?

I pull no punches, and start no personal fights.

This dog bites when it feels as though it had growled for long enough, yet the kicking continued... I growled for a very long time. Clearly letting the perpetrator know that it was time to stop, assuming the reasoning skills were there to recognize the fact that I was being quite submissive in conversation.

Nice did not work...





This thread is and was about the importance of truth in knowledge concerning humans and there overall welfare. On that note...

Only after we have been able to grasp the facts of actuality are we in a position to act upon them with confidence, while accurately dismissing that which does not obtain the virtue of knowledge. The correct assessments concerning the nature of reality dictate the resolution of uncertainty. Once one grasps the truth, distractions and distortions of it are no longer possible.

The problem with the errors in ignorance, which I use simply in the context that it means unknowing, is that one is completely left in the dark, unknowingly. Using false information to base our decisions on is a recipe for disaster. Of course circumstances very well could be on the lucky side and perhaps provide the illusion of being fruitful. Being blissfully ignorant never lasts long though. Flying blind will inevitably lead to the pilots' crashing without, perhaps, ever knowing why.

Personal truth never equates completely with actuality, so where then should we begin to place confidence in information? Humans have something that no other animal possesses, that would be reasoning ability and rationality. That is where we place our confidence in finding the evidence that leads to knowledge. Human knowledge.

In fact some of the very WORST arguing and hostility Ive ever seen expressed is amongst scientists and even some of my college professors. Its actually the norm very often and argument leads to new experimentation and hypothesis. There is a lot of competition amongst research facilities and they are constantly cross checking one another and attempting to make someone appear inept or inconsistent in their research methodology.

What happens to overall welfare of a human when information is withheld preventing one from discerning truth or obtaining knowledge?

That just sounds like being Christian as is pretty consistent with their ideology.

Depending upon the relevance of the unknown knowledge, affects could be anything from minimal to overwhelmingly emotional, and everywhere in between. Assuming of course that the individual desire combined with the personal agreements contained within the human in question were at odds. What if the personal truthes contradicted actuality in such a way that the conveyance was distorted to meet unconscious fears creating an unconscious overload of the conscious?

It would all depend upon the situation, I suppose.


Hiya honey...

That feels like my week...

edit:
It would seem to me that unconscious fears evaporate when the light is shined and the cobwebs removed. So what is an unconscious overload of the conscious is really just temporary and useful in removing that which no longer serves.

And it also would seem that the unconscious is not rational so how can one have a rational conversation with a part of us that is purely emotional?

Hiya honey... meet you in the email room

How does one determine the relevance of knowledge that is unknown or intentionally withheld?