GENIUS FORUMS

DHodges,

SQ: The truest understanding of the difference between fiction and reality would then require an understanding of the difference between the physical world and our perception of it.

DH:You seem to be advocating a Correspondence theory of truth, which I think has some problems. Most generally, it has the assumption that there is an objective reality "out there", even though you can never sense it in any way - the part you sense and think about being part of your mental model, not the "out there" physical objective reality.

If that 'objective' reality can not be sensed in any way, what does it mean for it to be real? And how can that ghostly realm that can not be sensed in any way be more real than what is actually experienced?

This may be another direction from which the Buddhist concept of emptiness can be approached.

I suppose I am advocating the Correspondence theory of truth. As a man of science, I believe in the laws of physics. I believe in cause and effect. I believe that my experice (which consists only of electro-chemical activity in the brain) is caused by the input of my nerves, which is caused by the impact of physical reality on those nerves.

You are however correct in pointing out the underlying assumptions that there is something out there to cause the stimulous of my nerves, or that I have nerves at all. It is only my experience that tells me those things are there.

I read the Wikipedia page you linked to about the correspondence theory of truth, and it does seem to be a bit circular. My knowledge being verifiable only by my knowledge, or that of others, when the only thing we can truly know is what we are experiencing and not whether it is real.

Pending further reading into this matter, I would say that our experience is not real. Only an illusion that it is stimulated by something. I do not believe that the illusion is an accurate representation of that thing that stimulates it. Even if one believes in a physical reality (which I do) one must admit that our senses are capable of detecting only a tiny, tiny fragment of the phenominon within it, and therefore the illusion is woefully incomplete.

I believe the things that stimulate our experience are real, but I don't imagine there's a way to know whether our experience is in any small sense acurate to those things, since we are locked into the illusion.

In short, I believe in physical reality, but I know that doesn't make it real.

DavidQuinn000:
The very fact that you are asking where the laws of physics come from, and thus implying that you believe they are temporary entities (and I agree they are), immediately disqualifies them from the definition of Reality.

True. The physicists say the big bang that gave rise to our universe could have given rise to an infinite number of universes wherein the laws of physics could be different. If this is true then the laws of physics are not constant throughout reality, but only throughout our universe, which had a beginning and so likely has an end.

DQ: As for "energy", that is one of those nebulous umbrella terms which don't really refer to anything in particular. We never experience pure energy in itself, for example. We only ever experience its various so-called manifestations - kinetic, electrical, nuclear, gravitational, potential, etc.

In my view, a far better term is "cause and effect". It cuts far more deeply than "energy" does. The process of cause and effect underlies everything that happens and thus is the one thing which is consistent with the definition of Reality. The very fabric of Reality is composed of cause and effect.

But a process is just a series of events. If the process is real then aren't the events within the process real? If the events are real then why not the things taking part in the event? If the cause is real and the effect is real, why not the things causing the provoked effect?

As for what caused the laws of physics to come into being, that is a matter for physicists to nut out, if they ever can. But one thing we can know for sure is that they were caused to come into being, that they are part of the overall causal flow of Nature.

Yes, the laws of physics as we know them are the result of some other stimulous, but whatever created that effect must have been obeying its own laws of cause and effect. Why does Cause A create Effect B? Because there is some principle, some attribute of reality governing the result. So then are the laws of physics in this universe the natural result of the laws of physics, different as they may be, of some other plane/dimention/universe/aspect of reality? What the hell does that really mean anyway? And what significance does it bear? ...hmmm

Wild Fox Zen in discussing the deffinition of the word 'master':

You can try and get by on technicalities, but the *connotation* of the word implies 'control' or something like it -- that's the symbolic and emotional charge it carries.

The word itself is just a set of letters, or a pattern of sound. The symbolic and emotional charge is not carried by the word, but assigned to it by your interpretation of the word. Just because the word made you see those symbols and feel those emotions doesn't mean it's what he intended because those are the result of your interpretation.

I believe all he was trying to say was that part of enlightenment (certainly not all of it) involves being able to constantly and acurately distinguish between that which is real and that which is fiction. The only control involved is in controling where you draw that distinction, so that it is acurate. There is no control over reality or ficition because believing something is true doesn't make it true.

millipodium wrote:I swear to god, this kind of thinking seems like a form of mild to severe retardation.

Millie, what kind of reaction are you hoping to get with this sort of statement?

Also, how old are you?

DHodges wrote:

millipodium wrote:I swear to god, this kind of thinking seems like a form of mild to severe retardation.

Millie, what kind of reaction are you hoping to get with this sort of statement?

Also, how old are you?

What sort of reaction are you hoping to get with this sort of question?

Also, how old are you?

millipodium wrote:What sort of reaction are you hoping to get with this sort of question?

Well, Millie, it's like this.

You have established a pattern of making posts with little content other than to be insulting. Pointless attacks, in other words. I am making an effort to see things from your point of view. Why would a person do such a thing? Why would you want to be like that?

One possibility is that you are extremely insecure. Hence, a lot of bluster and bravado to try to compensate for that; you actually see yourself as very small and pathetic.

Another possibility - not too different - is that you desperately crave attention. You seek to get a response - any response, just an acknowledgement that you exist - so an insult is far better than being ignored. Again, an ego issue of seeing yourself as unworthy, as needing others to affirm your existence.

In general, your pattern of behavior has been disruptive and adding very little of value to the forum - stifling open communication rather than fostering it. Having someone around who is constantly on the offensive tends to put people on the defensive, which interferes with open communication.

So, how do you see yourself as benefiting from being here? How does the forum benefit from your presence? I just don't see any real benefit to anyone. You don't seem open to what this forum is actually about.

Also, how old are you?

I'm curious about your age because, on the one hand, your evident level of emotional maturity, "Mister Poopy Pants" style of insult instead of reasoned argument, and general level of social skills suggests someone quite young.

However, I'd guess that you are actually in your late teens or early twenties, given your level of literacy and the fact that you do seem capable of actually engaging in a dialog, at times. That age also seems consistent with your aggressive drive for dominance, and the frustrations to that drive you are likely to face at that age.

As for me, I'm 44.

DHodges wrote:

millipodium wrote:What sort of reaction are you hoping to get with this sort of question?

Well, Millie, it's like this.

You have established a pattern of making posts with little content other than to be insulting. Pointless attacks, in other words. I am making an effort to see things from your point of view. Why would a person do such a thing? Why would you want to be like that?

Actually, most of my posts are quite meritful, but when someone is being a douche or an assjacker, or a pointy-headed ninny, the label may be applied appropriately.

One possibility is that you are extremely insecure. Hence, a lot of bluster and bravado to try to compensate for that; you actually see yourself as very small and pathetic.

No. I'm quite secure. I'm gifted below the waist, and intellectually.

Another possibility - not too different - is that you desperately crave attention. You seek to get a response - any response, just an acknowledgement that you exist - so an insult is far better than being ignored. Again, an ego issue of seeing yourself as unworthy, as needing others to affirm your existence.

No. I just don't buy all this anti-rational pap that passes for intelligence around here. I know that infuriates the "enlightened".

In general, your pattern of behavior has been disruptive and adding very little of value to the forum - stifling open communication rather than fostering it. Having someone around who is constantly on the offensive tends to put people on the defensive, which interferes with open communication.

This is also a forum intended for bravehearted manly men, of either gender. Maybe you're a whiner.

So, how do you see yourself as benefiting from being here? How does the forum benefit from your presence? I just don't see any real benefit to anyone. You don't seem open to what this forum is actually about.

I'm totally open. You're just totally intimidated by me, and my pointing out of the emperors nudity.

Also, how old are you?

I'm curious about your age because, on the one hand, your evident level of emotional maturity, "Mister Poopy Pants" style of insult instead of reasoned argument, and general level of social skills suggests someone quite young.

It's called a sense of humor. Look into it.

However, I'd guess that you are actually in your late teens or early twenties, given your level of literacy and the fact that you do seem capable of actually engaging in a dialog, at times. That age also seems consistent with your aggressive drive for dominance, and the frustrations to that drive you are likely to face at that age.

I'm 35, but I have huge nuts.

As for me, I'm 44.

Don't be so serious. It's unmanly.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:

He and Quinn act like there's such a thing as proficiency where will and control don't play a factor... besides simply being *good* at making distinctions is hardly what I'd call enlightenment, or mastery, for that matter.

Being an *expert* at making distinctions is the very essence of enlightenment. It is consciousness at the supreme level.

-

Millipodium: You brought up the size of your genitalia twice in your reply to DHodges when he speculated about your insecurity, even though the question of whether it was your penis you're trying to compensate for never came up in his post.

Your reply was very illuminating, thank you.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:Your reply was very illuminating, thank you.

Yes, it's all pretty clear now.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:Millipodium: You brought up the size of your genitalia twice in your reply to DHodges when he speculated about your insecurity, even though the question of whether it was your penis you're trying to compensate for never came up in his post.

Your reply was very illuminating, thank you.

Yes. It's my maniliness that bothers hodges. It's so very clear.

It's so sad all you losers can do is accuse someone of being insecure, especially when you're getting your ass beaten three ways to sunday. Why would I be insecure after my comlete dominance of the board, on an intellectual level? You're silly.

Wild Fox Zen wrote:Millipodium: You brought up the size of your genitalia twice in your reply to DHodges when he speculated about your insecurity, even though the question of whether it was your penis you're trying to compensate for never came up in his post.

Your reply was very illuminating, thank you.

Yes. It's my maniliness that bothers hodges. It's so very clear.

It's so sad all you losers can do is accuse someone of being insecure, especially when you're getting your ass beaten three ways to sunday. Why would I be insecure after my comlete dominance of the board, on an intellectual level? You're silly.