Philosophy Discussion Forums

Keith Russell wrote: I don’t think it’s wise to utterly eliminate all claims which are supported by verifiable evidence, even if they cannot be “proved” or “known for certain”—considering that most things cannot be “known” with close to one-hundred percent certainty.

I don't eliminate them, I just don't invest in any of them as "true" or as facts. In my philosophy, what I experience is fact, and that is all that is fact. A true statement is a communication describing such facts as closely as possible, and that is all that is "true".

Everything else is speculation and belief, even if some ideas or models might present useful speculation and belief - like the model that physical objects exist outside of my experience of them, or the model that they do not - like your model by which you "explained" the "optical effeect" of my seeing an oasis that I later did not experience in any other way. That's one explanation, but I don't invest in it as the "true" one.

Systems and models of truth, IMO, shut down or prevent free will. The truth doesn't set you free, IMO, it chains you to it as long as you believe it to be true.

Meleagar wrote:Systems and models of truth, IMO, shut down or prevent free will.

Is that true?

(Do you start to see the problem?)

"Systems and models of truth, IMO, shut down or prevent free will."

Only if you marry them....

You sound nihilistic to me, Meleager. In your philosophy, what, if anything, is worth doing or living for?

Meleager is merely promoting the concept;

If you don't see it, it doesn't exist (quantum hyperbole).
Look only where the light is focused, not in the shadows.
What you don't know, can't hurt you.
Don't examine the details, the Devil doesn't exist.
There is no truth, feel free to dream your life away.

James S Saint wrote

What everyone lives on a different Earth now?

Very materialist James! If you inject enough scepticism into your view you see that the existence of subjective perspectives is enough to show that even if there be just one Earth, the perspectives on it are several and various.

Belinda wrote:James S Saint wrote

What everyone lives on a different Earth now?

Very materialist James! If you inject enough scepticism into your view you see that the existence of subjective perspectives is enough to show that even if there be just one Earth, the perspectives on it are several and various.

"If everyone sees it differently, then it doesn't exist?"

It seems to me that if everyone sees something, even if differently, then it MUST exist. That means that each of their perspectives is what is false, but what they mis-perceive about must be real.

The existence of subjectivity has no relevance to the objective.

Felix wrote:"Systems and models of truth, IMO, shut down or prevent free will."

Only if you marry them....

You sound nihilistic to me, Meleager. In your philosophy, what, if anything, is worth doing or living for?

Everything.

But, I understand your point, because I came to that position after I first dismantled my "truths"; when you remove all (or most) of the truth-progarmming from the machine, what is the machine supposed to do? Where is the motivation? The drive?

The problem is transferring the motivational perspective from being derived from "truth", to being derived from self. Instead of being commanded by a network of truths what to do, how to feel, etc., I get to create that myself. I enjoy the world and the roles I choose to play in it immensely.

What's worth living for? Everything and anything I wish. The world and life is an amazing experience. What's not to live for? I want to live forever.

Keith Russell wrote:Is that true?

It's a true description of my experience; I have the opinion that it might also be valid for some others.

Meleagar wrote:The problem is transferring the motivational perspective from being derived from "truth", to being derived from self. Instead of being commanded by a network of truths what to do, how to feel, etc., I get to create that myself. I enjoy the world and the roles I choose to play in it immensely.

That is the exact description of the self-referencing mode. The self-referencing modality is the very core of insanity as it ignores reality so as to pursue what it wants to be true, even refusing that there is a reality at all.

Such a mental condition causes serious lack of trustability, irresponsibility, anti-social behaviors, and a much higher risk of suicide.

It is the dominance of emotion over reason such as to cause the reasoning process to form the desired conclusions rather than adapt the enjoyment of life to what the reasoning deduces to be real and necessary. Thus needs are often ignored so as to justify the pursuit of entertainment, at times, even to the extreme of excusing maliciousness and murder with a guiltless demeanor.

It is promoted in individuals so as to disrupt and destroy families and larger groups.

James S Saint wrote: Such a mental condition causes serious lack of trustability, irresponsibility, anti-social behaviors, and a much higher risk of suicide.

Well, it has had exactly the opposite effect on me and everyone else I know who has tried it.

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote: Such a mental condition causes serious lack of trustability, irresponsibility, anti-social behaviors, and a much higher risk of suicide.

Well, it has had exactly the opposite effect on me and everyone else I know who has tried it.

I seriously doubt that, but the effects aren't instantaneous.

"It is the dominance of emotion over reason such as to cause the reasoning process to form the desired conclusions rather than adapt the enjoyment of life to what the reasoning deduces to be real and necessary."

The system is not based entirely on emotion, but on individual experience, which includes logic. It forces an individual to investigate; "What do I want?", "How might I get this?" To first do this, someone must realize what they want and rationally could have, I think this is what Meleagar means by choosing it. Notice, his self-realized wants have not led him to eternal life, he simply acknowledges the idea. However, there exists the ability for one to cloud his vision intentionally if he wishes to believe something.

The only reason this method of thinking might work is if someone is more dedicated to logic than to raw emotion, or especially if one's reasoning skills have not developed past a point which would allow them to understand something (which might be exceptional, given the limitations of the human mind).

Without doing that, for a person to live entirely like this they would simply need to be very smart and/or lucky.

Just because I begin with different premises doesn't mean my system of thought isn't logical.

Meleagar wrote:Online Philosophy Club

From The Mental Universse, Nature, Vol 436,7 July 2005:


Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), p.145:

The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct "actuality" of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation is impossible, however.

^^^^^^
If the direct "actuality" of the world around us can be extrapolted into the atomic range, then how would this be that it's actually impossible?
Contradiction at it's finest right here.
How would we know that it can be extrapolted into the atomic range if it's impossible to extrapolt in the first place?
This seems like some kind of joke to me. :\
Or incoherent thinking.

"The self-referencing modality is the very core of insanity as it ignores reality so as to pursue what it wants to be true, even refusing that there is a reality at all."

Yes, I believe this is the very definition of narcissism. However, it is possible to transcend the common human definition and experience of self as a separate distinct life form and realise all life as "self." In yoga, this is called Self realization. However, one who reaches this stage becomes indifferent to worldly enjoyment because there is no longer any separate ego to do the enjoying. All life's joy and suffering becomes one's own.

So it really all depends on one's knowledge of self. However, the gate to complete Self knowledge is quite small and narrow and only a very few may pass through it.

Imagine, you misread the quote, if read in it's entirety, it makes sense. I interpret it as meaning that we cannot make sense of quantum reality and therefore can make no unequivical statements about it.

Felix wrote:So it really all depends on one's knowledge of self. However, the gate to complete Self knowledge is quite small and narrow and only a very few may pass through it.

What is stopping them is not their knowledge, but rather their actual simultaneous awareness. This is caused largely by physiological/medical concerns. Thus learning doesn't usually have much effect on that state of high enlightenment. One must actually be able to physically become harmonious as well as psychologically.

When the physiology is not tampered, the psychology tends to work itself out. All humans would be much more enlightened naturally if not for socialistic efforts to control them via diseases and toxins.