Daniel wrote above:

'...If, God forbid, all of the beings that make up your consensus of reality are wiped out what is reality then? Is it any more or less real? Is its simple truth any different?...'

Daniel, you seem to propose a premise from which we can only deduct that as far as you are concerned, there is a 'reality' out there, independent of human beings' ability to fully access it. As though 'reality' EXISTED, and humanity is trying to uncover more and more of it.

Nothing in science, philosophy, psychology, neurology, much less theology or religion allows us to establish such premise.

It leaves us with our personal sense of conviction, mixed with the seriously faulted inherited myth that 'there is a reality out there'.

From everything that we can observe, reality is 100% man made. From the world of neuro-science, we've learned that the neo-cortex, our thinking, rationalizing, and so-called conscious piece of brain equipment, is 100% made-up of mimicking neurons, a feature we (humans) share with all primates.

The only difference between humans and other primates, is nothing other than a natural evolutionary ACCIDENT. Humans have billions more mimicking neurons than any other primates. This accidental phenomenon gives humans the unique 'ILLUSION-MAKING' context of 'SELF-AWARENESS'!!!

We, humans, are by default of nature, first and foremost SELF-AWARE beings, through a complex web of 'real' illusions. Of course WE are not ready to face the fact that it could be as INSIGNIFICANT AS THAT!!! But it is.

Our fundamental, inescapable and perpetual job in life, our 'job' of 'existing', is nothing other than convincing ourselves that we exist, without ever realizing that that is what is going on!!!

Over several million years of experiencing (DNA), we have built a rather rich dialectic 'code' of existence. A very rich web of languaging, symbols and master 'meanings' with which we all agree: this is the underlying overwhelming human 'consensus' I think 'Jane1' referred to earlier.

That consensus IS our only 'reality' !!! Nothing out there other than what we can name, give meaning to, and all agree with. The 'reality' if it is, IS WITHIN!!! ... NOT OUT THERE!!!

If 'god' (as though that existed!) had wiped out humans and their then consensus that the earth was FLAT, and was THE CENTER OT THE UNIVERSE, are you suggesting that that would have had anything to do with a reality other than man-made?!?!?

That's what was 'really' real for humans back then. They killed those whom didn't agree!!! Are you suggesting that just because it happens to be 'our generation', that OUR REALITY today is more real??? Are you suggesting nothing other than there would be this unknown 'thinking' out there, other than 'humans', that would oppose ITS reality against against ours???

I think the next breakthrough humans have yet to make collectively, is to move our ability to think beyond this circular, neo-cortex given, 'self-centric' exclusive, human paradigm.

This 'truth', this 'reality', this 'god of gods', this 'place' OUT THERE that holds it all!!! ... is part of the cheap, limiting, and delusional paradox we keep holding as 'reality', when in fact, all leads us to observe there is nothing other then OUR REALITY!!!

As for the main topic 'Bullies and logic', and with all due respect to the host, a little and very simple logic here would go a long way in clarifying the false premise (IMO) of this thread.

False premise in the sense that he host is either imposing himself as some sort of false moderator, or moralizer-in-chief (impostor in either case) by isolating and correcting a certain group of people, whom do not live up to some nebulous code of civility for which our host holds the key.

It would appear, from all the moral 'should be's' that the host is listing, that there is a serious misinterpretation of what this 'blog' is all about.

It is not because this 'place' is loosely called a 'forum', with so-called 'moderators', and 'disciplinary rules' to observe, that it should be approached, or be expected to live up to the promises of some official 'debating society' !!! Which seems to be the expectations of our host (official debating society, or some sort of formal schooling context).

The local 'tavern', or local 'diner' would appear to be a more fitting alternate metaphor when it comes to approaching these blogs !!!
A place where any quidam can 'walk-in', and all 'opinions' have equal value.
The 'moderators', as is the case here in these blogs, are nothing other than the peace keeping force, ensuring the integrity of the 'place' (namely the mingle2 site in this case), against potential prejudices from its patrons.

Learning the laws of 'tavern' or 'diner' talk, magically makes all 'presumed' bullies disappear from the blogs. Character and color, like the local tavern, inoffensive 'schoolyard bullies' maybe, but 'bullies' NO.

Once expectations are adjusted to the 'tavern' and 'diner' metaphors, all you'll find in here are people stating their opinions, in whatever form they do (moderators will come down on abuse, other than that, it's free form).

That being said, when some confuse or lace their opinions with too large a dose of moral or correcting judgment, others almost automatically come out and call the 'bull' as they 'sees' it !!!

Such is the 'ecology' of these 'tavern and diner' blogs !!!

When one gets with the program, the blogs work just fine.

I can not possibly understand where anyone can fault me for mentioning that arguments or any conversation would be so much more efficient and actually get somewhere if all parties are respectful!

Ill give an example. Calling someone a looser because you disagree is not...you guessed it...respectful!
If you were talking to someone on the street, and you didnt like their views, would you call them a looser? Its childish is it not?

Theres no "imposing" its a matter of being matture, isnt it?
When I talk to someone, I always give them their due respect, and I expect it in return. That "nebulous code of civility" is the standard of civilized society. Perhaps instead we should all find bones and sticks and bludgeon eachother to solve arguments.

That apears the only succseful means for keping your head above water in this forum. Its extreemly disheartening.
Jane, REPORT ME!!!! LOOK AT YOUR POSTS, LOOK AT YOUR VOCABULARY CHOICE, THEN LOOK AT MINE, THEN REPORT ME!!! IT WILL SAVE ME THE TROUBLE OF REPORTING YOU!

This isnt directed toward anyone in general, but I CAN NOT BELIEVE that I am having a discussion with ADULTS on basic RESPECT, something that should have been taught in kindergarden, and I have to defend myself!!!!

Im going to share a secret with you all. This is not meant to anyone person, and no doubt someone will take this the wrong way and flip out and call me stupid and a losser, but at this point, I dont care. I give DUE respect.

PEOPLE ARE STUPID! PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE IN A LIE, A MISCONCEPTION, A WARPED TWISTED TRUTH, ANYTHING JUST TO FEEL A SENCE OF PURPOSE! PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE SMART AND CAPABLE OF SEEING THE TRUTH IN ALL MATTERS, AND THAT MAKES THEM SO MUCH EASIER TO FOOL. THE TRUTH IS HARD TO SELL, ITS JUST THE TRUTH...IF YOU ARE NOT OPENMINDED AND OBJECTIVE, YOU ARE NOT IMPERVIOUS TO THIS FACT, AND MORE THAN LIKELY, AD LEAST ONE OF YOUR BELIFES IS AN PRODUCT OF SOEMONE ELSES PERSUASION AND INFLUENCE. THINK FOR YOUR SELF

Heres another secret;


DIVERSETY IN PERSPECTIVE IS ESSENTIAL TO FINDING THE WHOLE TRUTH! PEOPLE WILL HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN YOU, AND THATS OK! THATS HOW ITS MENT TO BE! SHORT OF THEM CALLING YOU A LOOSER AND LOOSING ALL CREADIBILITY BY DOING SO, HEAR THEM OUT YOU MIGHT LEARN A THING OR TWO!


Wew, I feel better. Again, Im not attacking anyone in general, Im admonishing the human race as a whole. When we all truly learn to be objective, I think we will finally move out of these dark ages we have been in the last 20 000 years or so, (In terms of the masses being manipulated by a few individuals for what ever reason) Hell, mabey thats not even possible.

Jane, I never ment to hummiliate you of course, but for the record I only have as much power as you give me. If I humiliated you, you let me.

You seem like you want to refute what I am saying and then you give a lot of supporting arguments for it, thanks but next time you can just agree with me.

Science, philosophy, psychology, neurology, theology, AND religion all came into existence as a search for those truths that are objective and part of ultimate reality.

There IS an objective reality outside of our existence, whether we see it or not. Like you said the belief that the world was flat and the center of the universe didn't make it so. The actual reality was the same though humans didn't see it for what it was yet. Our beliefs determine how we see reality, not reality itself. To say there is nothing other than OUR reality is to say we are all in a dream, is that what you are trying to say?
By the way even if this is all a dream of mine and reality really is what I make it to be, there is still an ultimate reality beyond my dream world.

You are right that the consensus is your only reality if you choose it to be. There are two things to it though, what you think is happening and what is really happening, two things create your reality. One can not exist without the other, unless this happens to be a crazy vivid dream. Without something to interpret can there be an interpretation? Why do we have a consensus to begin with? We are trying to uncover what IS and as we uncover more and more we come to conclusions about IT, we may be wrong but that is what all this searching is about.

It seems like you missed my point about all sentient beings being wiped out, and by the way I didn't say that God wiped them out either. I meant that after humans are gone does the Earth cease to exist? How about the sun? Gravity? Or whatever forces hold things together throughout the universe? These things exist outside of out perceptions and are part of an ultimate reality. Our perceptions don't change how they function but merely our understanding of them.

Bravo! Its good to know that there are others out there.

Also essential is an ability to change your perspective when something closer to the truth is presented.

Voilazer, physics in fact does accept the existence of not only our reality, but many others as well.
That being said...
If I die, im not sure if the world will continue to exist...ill be dead. On the other hand, science have proven that there are othere realities and demensions in existence and that the universe would continue to exist without us. (see the last 100 years of science, specificaly physics, quantum theory and Bells therom)
Its a paradox ( =
Ultimatly, I lean towards Daniels side. Does something have to be observed to exist? If we use the scientific definition (which seems fitting) no, it does not have to be observed, recognized or agknowledged to exist.

Agreed, although ill be the first to admit that is hard to do sometimes. The whole pride thing I reckon. But we must strive to do it none the less..

voileazur:
Excellent point, mon amour, "merci baku"!!! {pardon my French}
Actually, that isn't really what I found objectional, but the host's ridiculous manner of misinterpreting my posts and arguing against those misperceptions... (and, afterwards, admitting his mistake and begging for my forgiveness!!!)

As for the rest of your post (part I), I'm really glad you rubbed Daniel's nose off with his attempt of overpowering me with his impeccable command of English language!!! (he seems to be observing the Style while forgetting about Logic!)

Though, I have no right of criticizing the host of the thread. Therefore I respectfully bow out! (and hope he will not follow me to other threads...)

P.S. I hope the "host" would heed to "his own" advise (which he, obviously, copied from somewhere):

Wow you really got under her skin. She did seem to take things far too personally though, as if we were attacking her. If you read this Jane, thanks for the compliment and know that I wasn't trying to "overpower" you, just to help enlighten everyone (including myself) by engaging in mental competition using logic (which was definitely not forgotten btw).

Anyone else think I was trying to "overpower" anyone?

No Jane it might be difficult for you to understand, but I think for myself, I didnt copy anything. Wait...I thought you were gonna report me? hmmmm, mabey someone read her posts and replys....

Oh yeah, one more thing...here, ill put it in the language you use
(clears throught)

YOU QUOTE LOGIC LIKE SCRIPTURE FROM THE BIBLE!!!!!!!

YET I CAN COUNT ON ONE HAND THE REPLYS AND POST IV SEEN FROM YOU THAT HAVE NOT HAD ANY AD HOMINEMS!!!!

PERHAPS YOU SHOULD READ UP ON LOGICAL FAULACIES, (LIKE THE AD HOMINEM IM USING ON YOU RIGHT NOW) AND MABEY NOT USE THEM SO MUCH!!!!!

I HAVNT SEEN ONE VALID ARGUMENT FROM YOU JANE NOT ONE, ALL YOU SAY IS...

"YOUR WRONG YOU FOOL" IN BIG CAp locks which can be hard on the eyes after a while.

Dont worry, I still like you

Sorry, Daniel, what kind of a compliment are you talking about???
Do you mean the following?

Sorry, man, I thought you could comprehend the sarcasm!!!
(that's what a [ ] is for...)

Anyways, if you think you got to me, I think voileazur got both of you much better!!!

No you werent,and despite the emotions, she can have some dang good insight sometimes. . as long as im not involved lol I was a tad less than mature myself I admit, but what can I say. I can only hear "your wrong and stupid" so many times.

Anyways, about the discourse. I think if you ever have time, read up or even look up on wikki, Bells Therom. Id like to have a discussion concerning it but nobodyy iv met has any knowledge on it.

Oh were getting eachother now? tag your...wait
TAG YOUR IT!!!!GOT YOU!!!!

its not nice is it Jane. BTW no he didnt, cause established science got him

So it was an insult then Jane? Why would you try to insult me? What did I ever do to you? Well... I think you just proved yourself to be the bad guy here by insulting me for no good reason. Take a lesson from Voileazur and ARGUE instead of attacking the person, cuz that's just not nice.

I forgive you though.


Bell's Theorem eh? I'll check it out.

Ok, update concerning the op.
It has turned into a free for all verbal brawl! How do we always get to that point? What can I do to prevent people from trying to throw me infront of fast moving trains so to speak. See, im stuck, because theres so much I would like toshare and talk about, but it seems like I cant say anything without offending anyone no matter how hard I try lol. I even tried not trying to see if it would have the opposite effect, it didnt work.
Its just a shame, theres so many great ideas and perspectives on this thread alone, but we cant explore them for fear of getting hit in the cross fire!

Jane, Ill be completely honest. The thing that gets me the most about you is that I KNOW you are intelligent and capable of givin me some great insight, but all you tell me is that im wrong, ever. I never ment to get on your bad side, Im not sure how that happened. So ill just drop it and move on. I dont hold anything against you, hopefully you feel the same.

Voileazer, I didnt agree with all of it, but I liked your train of thought on perception and existence. I wish we could have explored that more. No hard feelings


Who else did I tick off?...


Oh, message. That one was a disapointer, because shes one of my favorites, It was just poor word choice that got me into that one. But even still, It seems like if i disagree, Im imediatly condemed. Im a math major!! Math says it uses arythmatic in any and all math, Id love to discuss that but she refused.

Its...mind boggling. So I thought, If I set some rules like be nice play fair, mabey Ill have a chance to hear everything and talk about it..but no, I got attacked by half the people in here for asking everyone to be respectful!

I know Im not perfect, Im young and I dont have all the answers, But give me a break!

Thoughts anyone?

The problem I think stems from people defining themselves based on the things they think they know. Since they have intertwined their definition of themselves with their ideas, any argument that refutes their ideas, especially a good one, is threatening to them on a personal level. This results in them feeling as if they are being attacked.

Especially if you argue successfully (or what would be a successful argument if emotions weren't involved) emotions are necessary to a person in this predicament for a couple of reasons. One, they cloud the logical capacity of the brain allowing the person to overlook the strength of your argument. Two, they are the ego's only defense when logic has failed, this is assuming logic was even attempted. It is all an attempt to maintain their sense of "self".

Unfortunately this kind of thing, in my experience, seems to happen more often than not. That seems especially true when trying to argue with religious people/ideas.

Daniel, I think I owe you an appology -- inadvertently, I confused you with trying to confuse me:

I don't think you have anything to do with that!!!

_________________ I admit, ME BAD!!!

It would appear to me, that Daniel, and now you, are confusing or rather collapsing the very distinct concepts of 'REALITY', the larger concept, and 'SCIENTIFIC REALISM', its subordinated concept.

I also notice that you 'jasonpfaff' take huge liberty of interpretation when granting science the responsibility of establishing what 'reality' is or is not. You claimed earlier :

'... physics in fact does accept the existence of not only our reality, but many others as well...'

Existence and reality are very much distinct, so are reality and scientific realism.

If I may propose a more appropriate perspective for the point of view you were trying to make above, I would first suggest that you may specify to you are talking about the scientific perspective of reality, and more specifically that you are referring to scientific realism. Only then could we meet your intention of installing a context of intelligent dialogue, based on mutual respect and open mindedness, leading to constructive and mind broadening exchanges.

Allow me to expand on the context you wish to establish with respect to this specific exchange.

It could be said, generally speaking, that this scientific perspective of reality focuses on determining 'observable existence' on the one hand (micro or applied science), and some 'non-observable existence' on the other hand (the eventual broader 'ideal state' science in general seeks to achieve).

Furthermore, science or scientific realism, do not 'EXIST' in a vacuum. IT (science) doesn't pretend or claim to define what reality is!!! It very humbly, modestly and rigorously seeks to contribute 'ELEMENTS' of reality to the already 'existing' pool, while respecting the already existing 'CONTEXT' for reality.

The perspective of scientific realism is very much subordinated to the field of epistemology, a cousin of ontology and metaphysics it could said, and children of 'Aristotolian' philosophy.

With respect to epistemology, the whole matter of observable existence made through scientific realism would belong to the school of thought known as 'epitemological internalism', while the non-observable existence would belong to the school of thought of 'epistemological externalism'.

That being said, all of it is part and parcel of the larger 'human defined' and 'consensus derived' concept and notions of 'reality'.

Until man, through thinking, distinguishing and 'languaging', NAMES particular 'objects', along with its demonstrable relation to others, there is no existence, as far as man is concerned.

The fact that man, through the scientific process, and subsequently through scientific realism, has NAMED into relative existence such objects (observable or not) as 'nothingness', 'infinite universes', 'the unknown', etc., fully supports the premise that nothing outside of 'our reality' exists!!! Including that which you refer as '... outside of our reality...' !!!

As a closing statement 'jasonpfaff', I am not out to 'get' science or anything, or anyone for that matter.

Furthermore, I would be extremely surprised that 'science would be out to GET ME'?!?!?!
Sort of a juvenile premise wouldn't you agree!