hehe....So how do we figure out whether the contents of beliefs are real or not? Or are you saying they are not real across the board?
The contents of a belief are always real in the sense that those beliefs exist and are comprised of attributes contained in a person's mind. However, the question here is better stated as:
Are perception and reality distinct entities?
In other words, are a person's beliefs separate from the objects of those beliefs? And, from that, are a person's beliefs consistent with the objects of those beliefs? The latter gives rise to the concept of true and the concept of false.
A person who believes in the Easter Bunny has a very real belief in the Easter Bunny. Whether or not the Easter Bunny actually exists separate from that belief, however, is a secondary existential question. If the Easter Bunny does in fact exist separate from that belief, then that belief is true in that it is consistent with reality. If the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, that belief is false in that it is inconsistent with reality.
The Solipsist, by the way, would suggest that there is no reality separate from perception, making "reality" dependent on perception rather than the other way around. A bit backwards in my opinion, but pure Solipism really can't be disproved.
Absent a solipist mindset, one figures out whether the objects of their beliefs are real by testing the consistency of those objects with those beliefs as well as the independence of those objects from those beliefs. Enter science, for better or for worse.
I look forward to fully processing your whole post. I have a question here, however. I wonder if you could please define "mind" for me. Thanks.
Mind would be the biological structure of the brain combined with the concomitant perception of self and reality that give rise to thought, emotion, reason and volition.
Mind would be the biological structure of the brain combined with the concomitant perception of self and reality that give rise to thought, emotion, reason and volition.
This is great stuff, farfromglorified! I'm looking up the word concomitant to understand precisely what you are saying. It would help me if you could tell me what you specifically mean by your usage of the word.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I overlooked something here: my spiritual experiences happened to me on a level that was not external or physical, even though they were woven within the physical level that everyone perceives. These empirical experiences did not come from society, or outside influence. In this sense, your assumption was not true in this case. The nature of spiritual experience in general is that they don't come from the commonly-accepted 3-d plane of experiences, but are generated from a different level that some apparently do not perceive.
i'm sticking with I THINK; THEREFORE I AM because in the next life we shed all our human attributes. yet we still think and therefore still exist. by many of the opinions stated here; a person in a coma doesn't exist. we consider death to be when the brain stops all activity. at this point the being stops using the physical body. there is no proof that this is the end of existance. many have been revived and had both good and bad experiences. but they've had experiences just the same. that is evidence that another existance follows. however; there is not one shread of proof that there is nothing after life.
The contents of a belief are always real in the sense that those beliefs exist and are comprised of attributes contained in a person's mind.
Please forgive my piece by piece approach here.
Would you agree that the contents of a belief are comprised of attributes contained within the mind, while also shaped around the physical reality?
For example, My delusions in the midst of mental illness always coincided with, were transposed upon and interminged with the reality everyone else perceives. That's why a mentally ill person perceives them as real. They are not independent of reality, excepting in the interpretive aspect, which springs from our internal brain wiring prior to conscious awareness. Most people don't recognize that they are making these decisions of what they will and will not perceive unconsciously, and beyond awareness. They assume that what they see is real. Compared to the consensual reality of the "sane", one who is mentally ill has wires that are crossed which translates to them seeing outside of what is consensually accepted as real.
So, again, do you agree with the aspect here, where even our false perceptions are firmly intermingled with the 3-dimensional reality the way it is for 'common' views?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
yes thoughts can become reality, but in order for the statement to be true, thoughts would always have to become reality.
How so? I'm assuming you are talking about the physical, objective reality. So, if it happens sometimes that thoughts become reality, imo, it is fair to say "thoughts can become reality".
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Would you agree that the contents of a belief are comprised of attributes contained within the mind, while also shaped around the physical reality?
For example, My delusions in the midst of mental illness always coincided with, were transposed upon and interminged with the reality everyone else perceives. That's why a mentally ill person perceives them as real. They are not independent of reality, excepting in the interpretive aspect, which springs from our internal brain wiring prior to conscious awareness. Most people don't recognize that they are making these decisions of what they will and will not perceive unconsciously, and beyond awareness. They assume that what they see is real. Compared to the consensual reality of the "sane", one who is mentally ill has wires that are crossed which translates to them seeing outside of what is consensually accepted as real.
So, again, do you agree with the aspect here, where even our false perceptions are firmly intermingled with the 3-dimensional reality the way it is for 'common' views?
if a person believes they are george washington for example; that is their reality. they exist within that reality. there are people here that think they are very intelligent when it's clear to a lot of us that they completely missed the boat. they live in that reality. reality is what a person percieves it to be. thus it has little to do with existance.
This is great stuff, farfromglorified! I'm looking up the word concomitant to understand precisely what you are saying. It would help me if you could tell me what you specifically mean by your usage of the word.
Concomitant would mean "occurring with". The faculties of the mind occur with and because of the biological structure of the brain.
there are people here that think they are very intelligent when it's clear to a lot of us that they completely missed the boat. they live in that reality. reality is what a person percieves it to be. thus it has little to do with existance.
ssshhhhhhhhhhhhh............;)
*looks around* But not me, though, right??
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
perceived reality over time can become physical reality. They are related.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Concomitant would mean "occurring with". The faculties of the mind occur with and because of the biological structure of the brain.
By the word "because" do you mean as an effect of the biological structure? Or do you give any sort of credence to the possibility that mind precedes the biological structure?
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
There's nothing to forgive -- it's a completely valid and constructive approach.
Would you agree that the contents of a belief are comprised of attributes contained within the mind, while also shaped around the physical reality?
Of course.
For example, My delusions in the midst of mental illness always coincided with, were transposed upon and interminged with the reality everyone else perceives. That's why a mentally ill person perceives them as real. They are not independent of reality, excepting in the interpretive aspect, which springs from our internal brain wiring prior to conscious awareness. Most people don't recognize that they are making these decisions of what they will and will not perceive unconsciously, and beyond awareness. They assume that what they see is real. Compared to the consensual reality of the "sane", one who is mentally ill has wires that are crossed which translates to them seeing outside of what is consensually accepted as real.
So, again, do you agree with the aspect here, where even our false perceptions are firmly intermingled with the 3-dimensional reality the way it is for 'common' views?
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Certainly our beliefs, be them true or false, valid or invalid, common or uncommon, or however you want to classify them, are all "firmly intermingled" with an x-dimensional reality. That, however, does not make all beliefs equal. Everything that is real is "firmly intermingled" with reality. Yet not all things are the same. For example, death and life are two different states, both completely intermingled with reality. Yet death and life are not the same.
Studies have shown that people who imagine themselves losing weight or gaining more muscle, gain more and lose more than those who exercise and eat identically but don't visualize.
Merely thinking something can bring about a physical reality. Not immediately visible in all cases but it does happen.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
By the word "because" do you mean as an effect of the biological structure?
Certainly, yes.
Or do you give any sort of credence to the possibility that mind precedes the biological structure?
I find that to be implausible, but not impossible. In order to accomodate that one must likely enter the "soul" or the "god" or some form of the preternatural, which in turn defines something based on its inability to be defined. And that's an anti-concept, something that disproves itself. Regardless, at that point we arguably re-enter the idea of belief driving reality as opposed to the other way around. And that likely sets up a contradiction wherein we say that reality gives rise to belief and belief gives rise to reality at the same time. Logically, it becomes very troubling.
no; not you. the fact is that many people that have had brain injuries actually become more intelligent; IQ speaking. just as left handed people are more intelligent because they opperate from the right side of the brain. the brain will opperate in it's normal function until an injury occures. like when someone becomes blind; their other senses sharpen which helps compensate.
we say the brain heals itself; but the reality is that the being heals the brain.
Studies have shown that people who imagine themselves losing weight or gaining more muscle, gain more and lose more than those who exercise and eat identically but don't visualize.
Merely thinking something can bring about a physical reality. Not immediately visible in all cases but it does happen.
Be careful of false cause. Just because you have 100 people who imagine themselves losing weight that lose weight doesn't mean that they lost weight because they imagined themselves losing weight.
Certainly the mind has powers we are not currently able to comprehend, but the concept of the "thinking makes it so" can be stretched to both ludicrous and dangerous conclusions.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Certainly our beliefs, be them true or false, valid or invalid, common or uncommon, or however you want to classify them, are all "firmly intermingled" with an x-dimensional reality. That, however, does not make all beliefs equal. Everything that is real is "firmly intermingled" with reality. Yet not all things are the same. For example, death and life are two different states, both completely intermingled with reality. Yet death and life are not the same.
but each of our realities are different. no two people have the same reality. you're reality may include waking at 6:00 am; showering; and driving to work. you may live in a city and your reality is completely different from my reality living on a ranch.
so there is no deffinition for reality. reality is WHAT IS.
Be careful of false cause. Just because you have 100 people who imagine themselves losing weight that lose weight doesn't mean that they lost weight because they imagined themselves losing weight.
Certainly the mind has powers we are not currently able to comprehend, but the concept of the "thinking makes it so" can be stretched to both ludicrous and dangerous conclusions.
Actually studies show exactly that. you visualize yourself thinner you get thinner. Same for sports, playing music and imagining practicing. Those who imagine practicing sinking backets or playing an instrument progress in reality over those who don't. It's proven.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Be careful of false cause. Just because you have 100 people who imagine themselves losing weight that lose weight doesn't mean that they lost weight because they imagined themselves losing weight.
Certainly the mind has powers we are not currently able to comprehend, but the concept of the "thinking makes it so" can be stretched to both ludicrous and dangerous conclusions.
but if one person does it; it is a reality. 37 years ago; two men walked on the moon. no one has done it since. just because only two people have ever done it; doesn't make it a false preception.
but each of our realities are different. no two people have the same reality. you're reality may include waking at 6:00 am; showering; and driving to work. you may live in a city and your reality is completely different from my reality living on a ranch.
so there is no deffinition for reality. reality is WHAT IS.
You're using the term "reality" in a misleading fashion here. What you're talking about is subjectivity, which is fine. But actual reality is singular. If your actual reality were different from my actual reality, our realities would contradict each other, thereby making something both true and false at the same time. You may potentially toe this philosophical road if you'd like, but nearly every concept in science, morality, and justice would be rendered invalid.
Actually studies show exactly that. you visualize yourself thinner you get thinner. Same for sports, playing music and imagining practicing. Those who imagine practicing sinking backets or playing an instrument progress in reality over those who don't. It's proven.
Actual studies show that people who think about things can often do those things. What those studies do not show is if those things are causal, or both effects of a third cause. It is not "proven".
Look, if I give you a rock in Manhattan and tell you it's a tiger repellant and then "prove it" by demostrating a lack of tigers in Manhattan, I haven't actually demonstrated anything other than the fact that you've been given a rock and there are no tigers around. I didn't prove that the rock you were given repels tigers.
but if one person does it; it is a reality. 37 years ago; two men walked on the moon. no one has done it since. just because only two people have ever done it; doesn't make it a false preception.
The act of doing it makes it real, yes. Thinking about it made nothing real except a thought.
There's no such thing as a "false perception" unless there is a singular, objective reality against which one may measure one's perception. Seeing the tooth fairy only becomes a "false perception" in the event that no tooth fairy that actually exists. Even then one could argue that "false perception" is still an anti-concept.
Actually studies show exactly that. you visualize yourself thinner you get thinner. Same for sports, playing music and imagining practicing. Those who imagine practicing sinking backets or playing an instrument progress in reality over those who don't. It's proven.
easily proven when you look at the shamins. i saw one slice a watermelon in half while it sat on the belly of another man. the shamin consentrated on the sword stopping before it hit the flesh.
the mind is only limited to those who believe it's limited. if you want to believe science; you're brain is trapped within the walls science has scribed. those who believe there is more; can experience more.
Actual studies show that people who think about things can often do those things. What those studies do not show is if those things are causal, or both effects of a third cause. It is not "proven".
Look, if I give you a rock in Manhattan and tell you it's a tiger repellant and then "prove it" by demostrating a lack of tigers in Manhattan, I haven't actually demonstrated anything other than the fact that you've been given a rock and there are no tigers around. I didn't prove that the rock you were given repels tigers.
There's limitations just as a Ferrari can't drive at 1000mph at this point in time, but the phenomena would seem to exist (from within anyways)
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
There's limitations just as a Ferrari can't drive at 1000mph at this point in time, but the phenomena would seem to exist (from within anyways)
I'm not saying the phenomena doesn't exist. It very well may and if someone forced me to make an educated guess I'd say it does exist, to a limited extent.
Comments
The contents of a belief are always real in the sense that those beliefs exist and are comprised of attributes contained in a person's mind. However, the question here is better stated as:
Are perception and reality distinct entities?
In other words, are a person's beliefs separate from the objects of those beliefs? And, from that, are a person's beliefs consistent with the objects of those beliefs? The latter gives rise to the concept of true and the concept of false.
A person who believes in the Easter Bunny has a very real belief in the Easter Bunny. Whether or not the Easter Bunny actually exists separate from that belief, however, is a secondary existential question. If the Easter Bunny does in fact exist separate from that belief, then that belief is true in that it is consistent with reality. If the Easter Bunny doesn't exist, that belief is false in that it is inconsistent with reality.
The Solipsist, by the way, would suggest that there is no reality separate from perception, making "reality" dependent on perception rather than the other way around. A bit backwards in my opinion, but pure Solipism really can't be disproved.
Absent a solipist mindset, one figures out whether the objects of their beliefs are real by testing the consistency of those objects with those beliefs as well as the independence of those objects from those beliefs. Enter science, for better or for worse.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Mind would be the biological structure of the brain combined with the concomitant perception of self and reality that give rise to thought, emotion, reason and volition.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i'm sticking with I THINK; THEREFORE I AM because in the next life we shed all our human attributes. yet we still think and therefore still exist. by many of the opinions stated here; a person in a coma doesn't exist. we consider death to be when the brain stops all activity. at this point the being stops using the physical body. there is no proof that this is the end of existance. many have been revived and had both good and bad experiences. but they've had experiences just the same. that is evidence that another existance follows. however; there is not one shread of proof that there is nothing after life.
Would you agree that the contents of a belief are comprised of attributes contained within the mind, while also shaped around the physical reality?
For example, My delusions in the midst of mental illness always coincided with, were transposed upon and interminged with the reality everyone else perceives. That's why a mentally ill person perceives them as real. They are not independent of reality, excepting in the interpretive aspect, which springs from our internal brain wiring prior to conscious awareness. Most people don't recognize that they are making these decisions of what they will and will not perceive unconsciously, and beyond awareness. They assume that what they see is real. Compared to the consensual reality of the "sane", one who is mentally ill has wires that are crossed which translates to them seeing outside of what is consensually accepted as real.
So, again, do you agree with the aspect here, where even our false perceptions are firmly intermingled with the 3-dimensional reality the way it is for 'common' views?
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
yes thoughts can become reality, but in order for the statement to be true, thoughts would always have to become reality.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
are you absolutely sure that the truth re: humans is relative?
Truth is absolute. Now, people may believe something to be true, but when it is found out to not be true, it becomes a belief or an opinion or wrong.
if a person believes they are george washington for example; that is their reality. they exist within that reality. there are people here that think they are very intelligent when it's clear to a lot of us that they completely missed the boat. they live in that reality. reality is what a person percieves it to be. thus it has little to do with existance.
Concomitant would mean "occurring with". The faculties of the mind occur with and because of the biological structure of the brain.
*looks around* But not me, though, right??
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
There's nothing to forgive -- it's a completely valid and constructive approach.
Of course.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Certainly our beliefs, be them true or false, valid or invalid, common or uncommon, or however you want to classify them, are all "firmly intermingled" with an x-dimensional reality. That, however, does not make all beliefs equal. Everything that is real is "firmly intermingled" with reality. Yet not all things are the same. For example, death and life are two different states, both completely intermingled with reality. Yet death and life are not the same.
Merely thinking something can bring about a physical reality. Not immediately visible in all cases but it does happen.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Certainly, yes.
I find that to be implausible, but not impossible. In order to accomodate that one must likely enter the "soul" or the "god" or some form of the preternatural, which in turn defines something based on its inability to be defined. And that's an anti-concept, something that disproves itself. Regardless, at that point we arguably re-enter the idea of belief driving reality as opposed to the other way around. And that likely sets up a contradiction wherein we say that reality gives rise to belief and belief gives rise to reality at the same time. Logically, it becomes very troubling.
no; not you. the fact is that many people that have had brain injuries actually become more intelligent; IQ speaking. just as left handed people are more intelligent because they opperate from the right side of the brain. the brain will opperate in it's normal function until an injury occures. like when someone becomes blind; their other senses sharpen which helps compensate.
we say the brain heals itself; but the reality is that the being heals the brain.
Be careful of false cause. Just because you have 100 people who imagine themselves losing weight that lose weight doesn't mean that they lost weight because they imagined themselves losing weight.
Certainly the mind has powers we are not currently able to comprehend, but the concept of the "thinking makes it so" can be stretched to both ludicrous and dangerous conclusions.
but each of our realities are different. no two people have the same reality. you're reality may include waking at 6:00 am; showering; and driving to work. you may live in a city and your reality is completely different from my reality living on a ranch.
so there is no deffinition for reality. reality is WHAT IS.
Actually studies show exactly that. you visualize yourself thinner you get thinner. Same for sports, playing music and imagining practicing. Those who imagine practicing sinking backets or playing an instrument progress in reality over those who don't. It's proven.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
but if one person does it; it is a reality. 37 years ago; two men walked on the moon. no one has done it since. just because only two people have ever done it; doesn't make it a false preception.
You're using the term "reality" in a misleading fashion here. What you're talking about is subjectivity, which is fine. But actual reality is singular. If your actual reality were different from my actual reality, our realities would contradict each other, thereby making something both true and false at the same time. You may potentially toe this philosophical road if you'd like, but nearly every concept in science, morality, and justice would be rendered invalid.
Actual studies show that people who think about things can often do those things. What those studies do not show is if those things are causal, or both effects of a third cause. It is not "proven".
Look, if I give you a rock in Manhattan and tell you it's a tiger repellant and then "prove it" by demostrating a lack of tigers in Manhattan, I haven't actually demonstrated anything other than the fact that you've been given a rock and there are no tigers around. I didn't prove that the rock you were given repels tigers.
The act of doing it makes it real, yes. Thinking about it made nothing real except a thought.
There's no such thing as a "false perception" unless there is a singular, objective reality against which one may measure one's perception. Seeing the tooth fairy only becomes a "false perception" in the event that no tooth fairy that actually exists. Even then one could argue that "false perception" is still an anti-concept.
easily proven when you look at the shamins. i saw one slice a watermelon in half while it sat on the belly of another man. the shamin consentrated on the sword stopping before it hit the flesh.
the mind is only limited to those who believe it's limited. if you want to believe science; you're brain is trapped within the walls science has scribed. those who believe there is more; can experience more.
There's limitations just as a Ferrari can't drive at 1000mph at this point in time, but the phenomena would seem to exist (from within anyways)
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Then make your mind both a mind and not a mind, at the same time. Show me how it is not limited in that regard.
I'm not saying the phenomena doesn't exist. It very well may and if someone forced me to make an educated guess I'd say it does exist, to a limited extent.