I think that you have mistaken the maps for the territory. Which is why can say things like this : “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.”
Yet, you cannot even make your point without referring to a “true reality” : “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.”
IOW, you cannot even state your argument without referring to the thing which you deny.
You accept that nothing is true until the general consensus dictates it to be true (a devotee to the Pharaoh): Reality is only what WE tell you that it is.
Of course, you forget (assuming that you ever knew):
Obviously the color-blind if philosophically matured would not claim his/her reality is THE REALITY, i.e. the true absolute reality and every one’s else is false reality.
Just because you are the majority, you cannot play God is assert the color-blind reality is a false reality. It is a true-reality relative to his condition.
Now what is the issue with the above?
I am very confident of my philosophical knowledge and principles and generally do not present my own messed-up views. The errors I made are likely to be omissions and oversights which I will admit and need to be corrected.
Many a times what I presented appear to be a contradiction, but that is only if one view the point from one sense and perspective. This apparent ‘contradiction’ must be analyzed in terms of its respective perspective and there will be no contradiction.
A contradiction emerge when ‘P’ and ‘not-P’ exists and conflated in the same sense [perspective] and same time.
You are talking nonsense and transposing from your own level.
Reality is relatively-true to a Framework and System.
How true, i.e. its degree as being knowledge will depend on the degree of objectivity of the Framework and System.
Relative-truth can range from low-opinions [heavily subjective], medium beliefs to knowledge [which has high to highest level of objectivity].
God exists is merely belief relative to the theistic Framework and System which has almost zero objectivity.
A Scientific theory is knowledge and is only relatively true to the Scientific Framework and System which has a very high degree of objectivity, i.e. it is open to testing for repeatability and justifications by any one.
As I had stated many times, your views are derived from a very narrow, shallow and simple-mind philosophical base. At the same time you are so ignorant of your own state and is so desperate to condemn the views of others based on ignorance and lack of depth and width.
To strengthen your philosophical credibility you must widen and deepen your philosophical base to understand [not necessary agree] the wider base of a particular issue.
You wouldn’t be speaking such BS if you would bother to at least get learn the meanings of your words.
“Reality” refers to what is real regardless of what anyone might believe. What is “true” is dependent upon the language and alignment with reality, also regardless of what anyone might believe to be true.
With that in rational mind, there can only be one reality, although there can be many truths/ontologies even if they are spoken in different languages. Contradiction is the only guide to discovering which of the many proposed truths cannot be true. Contradiction with observation is the guide for Science.
Babbling ignorance. Knowledge isn’t at all about objectivity. Knowledge is about the lack of contradiction, logical certainty within a chosen ontology. One can have knowledge about complete fantasies. And subjective opinion can be completely true as long as they align with reality and thus objectively true despite being subjective opinion (which is how they got Relativity Theory to more accurately predict).
The word and concept “God” belongs to a spiritual based ontology. God exists within all such ontologies, by definition. The existence of God in reality can only be un-true if there is absolutely nothing in reality which aligns with the definition of “God” as a concept. Again, it has nothing at all to do with objectivity or subjectivity.
More babbling in ignorance. Science uses a chosen (and changing) ontology. The concept of “God” is not defined in that ontology. And many things that are defined in that ontology do not align with reality. Science is confident about many untrue notions. So no, Science is NOT knowledge (even though the word “science” was intended to mean “certainty of knowledge”).
And as you have demonstrated many times over, you have no idea of what you say and certainly not of what forms my views. You are too busy babbling in an effort to support yourself.
Still talking to the mirror?
Can’t you yet see how grossly insulting you are to others yet so terribly whiny about the slightest disagreement with you? Narcissists have such a poor reflection in mirrors, they presume it to be someone else.
Just finished J. Huxley’s book and would highly recommend it for those who would appreciate his attempts to complement religion and science. In the book he refers to his naturalistic religion as “evolutionary humanism”. He finds the human mind to be the greatest achievement of evolution and sees human destiny, its care and concern, as the proper study of science and religion.
Although I find Huxley’s views fascinating, I must admit that, for me, they tend to hint at teleology and anthropomorphism in evolution. So the question remains whether or not one can make religious statements about evolution without the statements appearing teleological or anthropomorphic?
You don’t have a coherent concept of reality. You mingle two separate ideas into one. You use the word ‘reality’ inconsistently … sometimes you mean “true reality” and sometimes you mean “understanding of reality”. You don’t even realize that you are doing it. But it leads to confusion for you and everyone that you talk to. Your conclusions about “true reality” are based on “understanding of reality”. That’s why you deny permanence. That’s why you claim that there are 7 billion realities.
You have read too much and you have become trapped in your frameworks and systems.
The question is as simple as : “Is there something outside of myself?”
Wrong. I wonder how you get to this despite my glaring declaration against absolute certainty.
Absolute certainty belong to the theists’ absolute certainty of God Exists.
It would be most stupid [philosophically] of me to insist there is absolute certainty.
Note Wittgenstein’s ‘On Certainty’ where he rejected 100% absolute certainty.
I disagrees with absolutely absolute, the 100% certainty and the likes.
I accept relative-absolute, conditional absolute, relative certainty and conditional certainty.
When “outside the box” means that 2+2=3, some of us intentionally don’t think there. Idiots think “outside the box”, like drawing outside the lines of reason just to be cool.
And since you have now been reduced to mere insults (rather than your normal insult followed by more preaching), I have to take it that you have no explanation for your contradictions.
What is reality to human beings is something like the above, i.e. there are dual truths and many truths.
Your problem with your views is given existing state you perhaps can only see, say, the RABBIT but not the DUCK. So you insist reality is the RABBIT and you cannot say anything else because you can ONLY perceive the RABBIT. Perhaps the majority of humans are like you can only see the RABBIT, thus the majority view dominate.
A percentage of humans may only see the DUCK and not the RABBIT. So in accordance to the observation and real evidence, to them the reality is the DUCK.
So when the people who perceive DUCK and people who perceive RABBIT present their respective conclusion of reality each will insist their observed and inferred reality is the true one and the other is wrong.
Unfortunately as with our current situations, the majority always win, so the propositions of RABBIT reality would be a de facto reality and the minority’s DUCK reality is ‘forced to be wrong.’
When we deliberate philosophically [what this forum is for] on the above claims, both the RABBIT and DUCK perception are true but only relative to their given conditions.
The point is no one can decide who is right and who is wrong. The majority win is not necessary the truth.
As for me I applied philosophy and understand both views are true, that is why I present two views of reality but I always qualify and explain my position. So you should not misunderstand my point if you reflect deeply and philosohically on the issue as I had explained.
The problem is your default position ‘forced’ you into seeing ONLY one view within the dual and many truths, thus prevent you from understanding my multi-views position.
Note this exercise.
What do you see in this image;
If you are not informed, you are likely to see only one image but not the other.
For some it will take a lot of explaining and pointing to see the other valid truth.
There are many such exercise and for many they just cannot see the other picture from the same image.
The point here is, reality is not merely a dual-truth-image exercise but comprised of complex combinations of truths. Those [the majority] who perceive only their ‘given’ truth [where it work for them] will report it over generations and the minority will not be able to get their truths across.
You can condemn my philosophical views but I know for sure you will lose the opportunity to understand [not necessary agree] other aspects of truth within realities and ‘reality’. There is no permanent absolute independent external reality out there. As Hume asserted what you claim as a permanent reality is merely because you are habituated and accustomed to it psychologically.
QP or QM do correspond to reality but is conditioned by its defined system and the overall Framework of Science.
The point is no one can claim their specific reality is absolute without making reference to their conditions [Framework and System] they churn out their conclusions.
The elements within water, i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, the electrons and sub-atomic particles are always changing and in flux. There is no permanent element within water-H2O.
Emotional?
What I am stating is objective fact based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
The grounds for a preference of objective fact over the illusory [both has their Framework and System] is the striving towards the ideal morality of the highest good and no evil for the overall well being of humanity.
Note any one can insist there is permanent soul and God arising out their Framework and System. If theists in general keep it private and bring no long term harm nor hinder the progress of humanity, no body would bother with such ideas.
They don’t have different “specific realities” - they have opinions about reality, they have points of view, they have different interests, they have different understanding and different knowledge of reality.
If you can’t accept the permanence of protons and electrons, chemical bonds, electric charge or gravitational attraction of water, then there is nothing more to be said about it.
S.J. Gould spent many pages attempting to refute the notion that humans are the evolutionary crown of creation. But something of the sort has to be admitted if one believes, as J. Huxley appears to believe, that humans have evolved to the extent that they can change their evolution for the betterment of mankind.
We can manipulate matter for our own good or ill, which tends to suggest that we know something about the reality of our material universe. Still, the notion of what is true must be seen as a pragmatic idea when what is true can be gleaned from what is real or authentic as accessible for our purposes.
It is very obvious different humans has different opinions on the same thing.
This is the common everyday conventional sense of different people having different views on what is going on within reality. This is typical of the various subjective views of different people reporting on the same events, e.g. new reporter, sports commentary, political views, etc.
However apart from the conventional subjective opinions and belief there is a deeper level of cognition that is going on. This is based more on beliefs rather than on personal opinions. Such an emergence [not conception based on opinion] of reality is due to the common algorithm of various groups of human beings due to more of inherent evolved nature [than of their nurture].
This is taking DUCK-RABBIT happenings at a more sophisticated level.
When I am discussing is not having different opinions on political events but different emergence of reality relating to permanence or impermanence, god or no-God, soul or no soul, external or interdependent worlds.
When you stated they have different opinions, you are not differentiating from the conventional sense of having different opinions and the philosophical sense of having different beliefs and cognition of reality. [interdependent and not independent reality].
It is a fallacy to conflate two distinct senses, i.e. common sense and philosophical sense.
How too much?
What I have stated is based on accepted theories that can be repeated, tested and verified by any one based on whatever Framework and System that is applicable.
Where in the world can we ever get a permanent proton? The particles therein a proton are always changing and are bombarded by quarks and particles from everywhere.
One day a proton may have, say 1000 elements, the next day it could have 950 or 1100 elements and thus not permanently the same at all times.
Find even one reputable scientist who believes that water need not have hydrogen and/or oxygen. He would be definitely wrong. And similarly, any proton that has 1000 quarks would not be a proton. You are making completely ridiculous assertions concerning a subject that you obviously know nothing about. There are no accepted theories at all in science asserting what you claim. You are lying.
As I said, for your own sake, you really should avoid the subject of physics.
A water molecule by definition is H2O, i.e. 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atoms. The fact is the particles within those atoms changes all the time.
Note for simplicity I stated “say 1000 elements.” It just for example, I could have stated ‘x elements.’ By ‘elements’ I meant the smallest components within the proton, i.e quarks, gluons and other particles, etc.
You should get an education on philosophy. I admit I am not an expert in Physics but I am not wrong in principle that each phase of the physical world is made up of smaller parts which are not permanent, i.e. never change.
It is your lack of education in philosophy that is leading you into making absurd assertions concerning physics.
Just as water is defined as H2O within science, ALL “particles” are defined as to their exact size, shape, and make up. If their make up changes, they are no longer what they were. And if the particles within water change, it becomes a special kind of water, given a different name, such as deuterium.
[list]The Law of Identity: A is A[/list:u]
The most classical assertion within all philosophy of logic, without which there can be no mind at all. Science cannot deny it and remain science.
What is “changing” within particles is exchanging, as in Theseus’ Ship. The over all make up doesn’t change at all other than minuscule variation in size dependent upon their environment.
If you shit at t1, then you are a different person in terms of composition at t2, does that mean you are a different James S Saint in general?
What you have failed to understand there are different perspectives to the same thing.
While there is same “you” in one sense [sense X], in reality there is a different you at t1, t2, t3, etc. [sense Y].
The fact is sense Y [specific and detailed] is is more realistic than sense X [general].
Note Heraclitus,
No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
In general we always refer to the Nile as if it is the same river all the time, but in reality it is never the same river.
The fact is the state of an atom [in term of particles, etc.] (sense Y) within a permanent H2O combination of molecular structure [sense X] is never permanent.
The Law of Identity: A is A is only applicable to things within the same sense and same time. Again you failed on this.
Water at the level of the molecular sense is not the same at the sub-particle sense, therefore the Law of Identity: A is A and Law of non-contradiction do not apply.
