James S Saint wrote: Prismatic567 wrote:
Is_Yde_opN wrote:^ Like for example, in a very simplified way to describe it:
To have a collective vote on reality, on what reality is, and then to convince those who see it in a different way through social techniques.
Note Science is doing that where their views of reality can be verified, tested and repeated within the Scientific Framework and System by any one who want to do it. Science is not claiming their truths are absolute but merely conditioned and qualified to its Framework and System [i.e. Scientific Method, peer review, assumptions, rules, etc.].
And everything that I say is true within my own framework and system. Is there anyone who cannot say that?
It is a meaningless assertion merely giving the opportunity to throw in the word "Scientific"..
We humans have reached a stage where no normal person [other than the schizos and the very mad] would dare to insist one view of reality within one's Framework and System is the true reality. First one will have to admit it is a personal view. To get more credibility for one's personal views, one will have to test it against the existing generally accepted Framework and System. One can invent and introduce a new Framework and System and if there is enough consensus it will be recognized as a new system. Quantum Mechanic is relative a new Framework and System, albeit a subsidiary of the existing Scientific Framework and System.
Virtual Reality is a new reality with its own Framework and Systems and it has benefits for humanity and thus is generating expanding acceptance and consensus. Virtual Reality is not conventional reality, but as long as it is defined within its Framework and Systems, then it is acceptable for use.
Prismatic567 wrote:In contrast, the Abrahamic religions are convincing their reality is the right based on fears and threat of perdition. This really works and thus many Abrahamic believers denounced the theory of evolution and cling on to creationism.
Various groups are battling within the existing battlefields of ideologies, where one is trying to convince others their views of reality are the correct ones while those of others are wrong.
The EXACT same thing happens within science. You merely don't get to hear it.
Regardless whether it is Science or otherwise. What counts is whether there is sufficient consensus on its claim of truth and usefulness without serious side-effects.
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe the wise stance is to accept whatever net-positive so-claimed truths but as conditioned upon their respective 'maps' and 'defined territories'. No truths should be claimed as absolute or as the only unconditional truth.
I don't believe you know what you just said.
What is wrong with what I had claimed. Prove me wrong.
Prismatic567 wrote:The greater the precision of the map the greater its representation of 'ITS' reality.
So you think that a map has its own reality??
How many realities do you image there to be? How many can be real at the same time?
A map is a representation of a human defined-reality.
There is no question of "how many" whatever is reality is conditioned by the subject's conditions.
There is no permanent independent reality out there other than the one that is conditioned upon the subject's condition.
Prismatic567 wrote:True absolute reality is an impossibility.
Then how can you ever say that any proposed reality is false?
And try to realize that every time you say "impossible", you are saying, "absolutely
Rhetoric, I am not asserting directly 'false absolute reality is a possibility'.
What I stated and meant is it is absolutely impossible to experience an independent absolute reality.
Prismatic567 wrote:In a way 'whatever I think about what reality is, reality is.'
That certainly explains why you think that you are always right.
I am not focussed on being right. I am waiting for you to prove me wrong. It is a lose-win for me. If you prove me wrong, then I gain new knowledge which should be the default expectation of any progressive human.
How can anyone ever be wrong if reality itself is merely whatever they think it is? The only thing that Science can ever do is prove that a proposal is necessarily wrong. But if whatever someone thinks is necessarily true merely because they think it, what point is there in having Science?
Actually that was not what I said.
Note I stated in the above.In a way 'whatever I think about what reality is, reality is.'
Note what is within ' ' was not mine, I agreed in a sense which followed upon my earlier context, but to be precise it has to be in accordance to one's personal Framework, System, Conditions and experience in addition to thinking. There is no reality at all if what one think is merely illusory, like God or a contradiction.
We have to have Science because no individual could produce the utilities that Science has contributed to humanity so far.
If an individual is color-blind, what s/he experienced is his/her reality. This is one example, but there are so many variables within the 7 billion human beings that there is likely to be 7 billion variations of reality that is conditioned upon each individual's conditions. Many of them would have lots of commonality due to generic elements within the human DNA.
It seems that all of those Muslims and Christians are necessarily right because reality depends merely on whatever their mind thinks. Or does that principle only apply to you?
Agreed on this point and it is applicable to all. But note the majority of Muslims [like Christians] and share the same reality among themselves as brainwashed by their same main holy text. Some Muslims perhaps up to 300 million evil prone believe non-Muslims are a threat to their Islam and SOME responded by killing non-Muslims, i.e. as in attack is the best defense. Proof is some where in this stats; [29,456]
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.