powder
-
Posts
478 -
Joined
Posts posted by powder
-
-
I agree with Marcus Clarke there FreeEach. You make a valid case I think and all you have to do is present evidence support the 'truth' as you see it, without the adjectives - 'Chumsky', 'Sheeple', 'alpha ape' are not facts or evidence or 'truth' - using terms like that only makes me feel there is a lack of integrity on your part.
I know almost nothing about Chomsky and his personality or arguments and am not in a position to make a judgement on Stef's inconsistent behavior. That said, Stefan has introduced me to what is for many of us a radical social concept of ostracizing those who do not share your values. I have heard him say on several occasions that he will only hang with people of virtue that share his values, so no statists for sure. If Chomsky does not share the same philosophy as Stefan and he brings him on the show for marketing reasons, or out of ignorance of Chomsky's views, then I find that problematic.
He has steered clear of the Ron Paul campaign and rightly criticized its policies, and there is a large audience for Stef's perspective over there, heck, I came to Stef by way of the RP stuff.
-
If you accept that empiricism through sense perception is the only way to make claims about reality, then someone who says "ghosts exist" without any sense evidence cannot be right because they are making a claim about reality without sense perception. I do not believe such a claim because I cannot perceive ghosts with my senses, yet rather because the other person's belief was not perceived with their's. The focus in not on your lack of perception of the phenomenon, but rather, the other's.
If the person provides sense evidence, then I can test the claims against reality. In the example of ghosts, I can evaluate the evidence in relation to the claim, and make rational arguments as to what the evidence is. For instance, these spherical orbs often found in photographs are claimed to be ghosts. I don't reject the existence of the orbs provided there is no reason to believe the photograph was manipulated, but I do weigh if this would be evidence for ghosts and attempt to provide more likely explanations if the conclusion of ghosts seems unlikely or unrelated. If I had a hypothesis as to what the orbs really are, I use the empirical testing to establish the relation of my claim to reality. If the arguments for claiming that the orbs are ghosts are beyond weak or non-nonsensical, I don't have to provide any explanation as to what the orbs are, rather I just have to show that the ghost theory is false.
I understand and totally agree with the argument and the methodology. But I think it is missing the point I am trying to make, or the question I am posing. Just because I am not able to perceive something thru my senses does not mean I am prepared to say it does not exist, just that I don't know without more evidence, or that my perception may be too limited for me to make a judgement.
The onus is on bob to show that ghosts are real. You can try to disprove ghosts now that you have a definition, but in most cases there is not enough there to even disprove. That's why it's on him so that you know exactly what you are disproving.
Agreed, the onus is on bob, which is why I would ask him to present his case. I general, I would have no interest in dis-proving something that others claim that has little or no sense evidence or impact on my life. I get that, but would you say to bob, "ghosts do not exist"?
my question is, how would you guys respond to bob? I really do understand now, thanks for walking me thru it, but I think those kinds of direct examples will help me articulate these concepts better.
-
But that's not actually to know everything about the truth, right? Knowing everything and trusting your senses to respond with accurate sense data are not the same thing.
I think it's an important thing to stop and address because, if it's true that reality is plain to see for what it actually is, and it's true that these erroneous conclusions you point out that people have made using their senses are really only confirmation of this self evident truth, then it's not a logical problem that needs to be addressed, right?
Does that make sense?
that does make sense, well put.
thanks for all the input guys, I think it is starting to sink in, I do understand what you are saying, I am going to need more time to articulate it for myself. Still, I am not sure why someone would say, " " does not exist because I cannot perceive it with my senses. Or is it just a different way of saying "it is not a logical problem that needs to be solved"? which I totally get and can get behind.
how would this discussion go for you guys:
Bob: "I think ghosts exist and are real."
Me: "What do you define as a ghost?"
Bob: "Blah, Blah = ghost"
Me: "Perhaps it is possible that ghosts exist. I don't have any experience with that, I need more information, evidence, proof."
-
Our perceptions being limited doesn't mean they are inaccurate, because the accuracy is relative to our senses. As an example you wouldn't say that a machine designed to detect x-rays was inaccurate because it didn't pick up every possible wavelength in existence, since it was designed with a smaller scope in mind. This is a challenge for building an accurate model of reality in our minds, but we can use logic and science to overcome the inherent limitations of our physiology. (remember even though we can't see x-rays directly we can see the effect of them on the body or the output of machines through our senses)
I don't understand how that means our senses aren't reliable. To be more precise, it is possible that what we call reality is actually an illusion or dream but there is no way for us to prove that. Imagine a Matrix-style scenario where everything we perceive is just made up of electrical impulses fed to us by some amazingly complicated computer, how could we prove it? If it is in fact true that we are living in an illusion that we cannot escape or even detect, does that have any practical consequence for how we behave? If it is true and is detectable in some way, then our senses are again 'reliable' despite our current lack of knowledge around the situation. (I put reliable in quotes because I'm not sure that is the right way to phrase it, it's not like we can say our eyesight is unreliable because we can't detect distant stars using them)
Yeah it is tricky, I hope the example at the beginning of this post helps.
'Unreliable' is relative to the discussion at hand. Sure they are doing the job they are capable of, and designed to do, but as a gauge to assess all that exists, they are clearly unreliable, just as an ant's are. An ant's entire universe is my back yard, from the perspective of the ant, that is true and real, but it is not accurate. Is that what we are talking about here?
To say, that everything that exists, the whole of reality, is what we perceive and verify thru our senses falls short for me. Unless I am mistaken, I think that is what I keep bumping into. ---That is the source of my quote about 'knowing everything' Kevin. It reminds me too much of religious dogma - here is the answer to all your questions and the simple formula for resolving all the mysteries of life and the universe kind of thing.
cynicist you have said a couple of things that I think are steering me onto the right track. Perhaps I am getting hung up on the language or some definitions, which is the purpose of the thread of course. It seems to me that the scientific method requires that we say "based on the known laws of ( ), it is not possible", or "I don't know", or "it is possible, or probably, I need more proof or evidence" etc. not "I can't perceive it thru my senses so it does not exist"
-
thanks Mrcapitalism, I'll have a listen to that one.
thanks too cynicist, this helps, I sense that I am getting close now
a couple of responses and clarifications below...
It's not obvious and simple, at least it wasn't for me. I can only describe it that way after spending a long time trying to understand philosophy and unlearning a lot of garbage I was taught growing up. I'll elaborate on some of the examples you brought up to help clarify since I think I see where some of these things are unclear for you.
It's not that our senses are inaccurate, we are just drawing incorrect conclusions based on what we see. You could say our perspective is limited, just like the perspective of an ant would be limited based on it's size, but that doesn't mean the ants senses are broken or don't reflect reality.
No, I didn't say broken, but limited, and therefore not an accurate or even complete reflection of reality. Our ears can only hear from 40 to 20,000 hrz or whatever it is - they are not malfunctioning but there are a lot of 'real' sounds out there we are not hearing. Incorrect conclusions is not a problem when assessing what is real?
This is tricky but if we couldn't distinguish between reality and dreams, how would we know that we were dreaming?
My point is that when it is happening we cannot distinguish, only after the fact, so our senses are not reliable gauges in that way. If you are hypnotized or having an illusion and you wake up, or recover from you trip, you can distinguish.
Our senses have limitations that is certainly true, but within the range of functionality they offer us what we see corresponds to what is true. Just because we can't perceive the entirety of existence unaided by technology doesn't mean that what we are perceiving is not real or valid. If I say that the sky is blue I'm saying that I perceive a particular wavelength (visible light) when I look at this area above the earth. So even though I can't see infrared or ultraviolet it doesn't make my statement any less factual. Even if I can't perceive those things I can still detect them and their impact on the world and that is reflected in my experience. (when we invent things like x-ray machines and so on, or see the effects of gravity on objects)
gotta let that sentence sink in for a while...
-
Kevin, yes I did listen to several of those podcasts, and I am still stumped, ... perhaps this is good practice for you cuz I am a bit thick with this kind of discourse, but I need you to be more precise, and concise...
But you can't say that without reference to the actual objects as they actually exist, otherwise, to say that it's not really an accurate representation, or that what we are experiencing is something else becomes entirely meaningless.
I can't say what exactly? yes, I am referencing objects that we agree upon their objective nature, still, our senses are telling us that the moon is the same size as the sun, it isn't. the onion is an apple, it isn't. I am saying that to claim that reality is what we experience through our senses is problematic.
Those electrical signals are not any different than the moon. To say that one is experienced and the other not makes no logical sense.
There is something out there that we all agree is the moon, but it is separate and different from our perception and interpretation of it.
The very fact that we have a term for dream and illusion is evidence of an objective distinction. The reason we can say that something is an illusion or a dream necessarily implies an objective reference to objective reality, otherwise the distinction would be meaningless.
Agreed, except that when you are dreaming or having an illusion, or under hypnosis, or having your brain poked with a needle, you don't know the difference between that and 'objective reality.' So why not say that reality is all that exists outside of our mental processes instead?
Also, you seem to be implying that because animals have a greater capacity for certain sensual experiences (larger ranges, lower thresholds, etc) you are appealing to an objective standard about what is real about the world. You already accept what I'm telling you. This is implied in what you are saying.
I am saying that there are things that we cannot experience because of our limited and problematic senses, that does not mean that they do not exist and are not real. What exactly, as concisely as possible, are you telling me that I already accept? I assume it is that objective reality is what we experience thru our senses.
That's why I say it's so simple: because everyone already acts as if it's entirely true (and the degree to which they don't they are uniformly recognized as having a serious mental problem).
There are three basic positions on the philosophy of mind:
- Nothing is real except our experience
- Some combination of the external world and our internal subjective experience
- the external world is entirely real and concepts do not exist <----HINT: it's this one
Stef goes into these in the Knowledge series. I would suggest you go there since he does a better job than I can. Have you watched any of them yet?
How we know that everyone already accepts the above conclusion:
Which conclusion is that exactly?
- Mental health is measured (in large part) by how well people can process and navigate the real world.
- Everyone expects consistent behavior of the physical laws (i.e. that gravity won't suddenly reverse)
- A successful scientific theory is reproducible, falsifiable and universally consistent
- etc etc etc
The only reason people quibble on these things (as far as I can tell as a layman) is because it serves some political or religious agenda:
- Plato's philosopher kings could access the world of forms and so they should decide what people should do, how society should run
- God exists because reality isn't "purely materialistic" and those who see past this "shallow materialism" can talk to god and "instruct" others
- etc etc etc
The only way that people can be controlled is if you undermine their capacity to understand the world objectively for themselves. Or as is sometimes mentioned "freedom is the freedom to say that 2 + 2 = 4. From that all else follows". By undermining people's efficacy here, they will rely on the perceived authority: the priest or the politician.
I certainly have no political or religious agenda, I just have a problem with anyone claiming to know the truth about everything.
-
I'd probably sound pretty silly saying it, especially since I am no expert on this (or really any other) issue, but isn't it just the simplest thing in the world? I really think it's as simple as it sounds. Me, this computer I'm typing on, the sun, the moon etc. What we experience with our bodies (our senses) and the extension of our bodies (tools, telescopes, microscopes, thermo goggles etc).
Kevin, saying that something exists, or is real, because we experience it with our senses is not a very useful definition to me because our brains simply receive electrical impulses sent by our senses. We are not 'seeing' the moon, our brain is simply interpreting electrical impulses and our 'senses' are not accurate. The moon looks as big or bigger than the sun according to our senses. We cannot distinguish between a dream or an illusion and a 'real' event. We can be hypnotized to process those signals differently. I watched a hypnotized guy eat an onion believing he was biting into an apple and he had all the sensory responses associated with eating an apple. Moreover, our sensory receptors that are sending the electrical impulses are quite limited. Our noses and ears for example only pick up a fraction of the vibrations that are sensed by animals with more sophisticated organs - these sounds and smells clearly exist, we just cannot 'sense' them.
and thanks, I listened to a bunch of the podcasts that you linked over that last couple of days while I was painting.
Kevin has shared some good stuff but just for the simple explanation objective reality is that which exists independent of our internal mental processes. Reality itself includes objective reality and the truth of our subjective experiences, a simpler version would be reality is that which exists. (this is to clarify that feelings of sadness may exist within our minds but there is no way to verify that objectively) Truth is that which conforms to logic or the evidence of our senses, the former being based on the consistent behavior of matter and energy as described by physics.
Let me know if I wasn't clear or missed anything, but I would refer you to the videos by Stefan that Kevin linked above for a more thorough explanation and more on the matter of existence.
I like this: "objective reality is that which exists independent of our internal mental processes, or consciousness" and "reality is that which exists."
Then you go on to distinguish reality from truth by saying that "Truth is that which conforms to logic or the evidence of our senses"
can you elaborate on that and give specific examples of what that would look like. I know it all seems obvious and simple, I just don't know if I am prepared to accept some of the basic premises.
-
I am pretty new to this philosophy thing and I am starting to get the idea that it is rooted in 'reality', what is real and verifiable, provable. Am I correct in that?
Certainly, my philosophy classes in university never gave me that impression - it seemed we were just asked to debate about random and irrelevant 'what if' scenarios, I hated it and assumed that that was what philosophy was about.
From what I am reading here and from listening to and reading some Stef's stuff, it comes across as infinitely more practical and rooted in universal 'truths' or 'objective reality'. If that is the case, I just don't know exactly what that would look like.
I think someone referenced a series of pod casts on the topic in another thread, like 19 of them or something. Short of listening to all that right away, can a simple and concise definition of what constitutes reality be given?
I ran into this in another thread and it seemed like I did not have an understanding of what was being assumed to be an apparent consensus of what was considered 'real' by some of the posters. I never got a definition of what that might be so I am interested to know. In that thread I was claiming that I could not consider myself an atheist because I just don't know what I don't know.
What am I missing when it comes to what constitutes reality from a philosophical perspective?
-
I feel the same way about 'spiritual' people Kevin.
I grew up with religion and have spent lots of time with both religious and spiritual people. I also spent a few years looking into the new age stuff and even ACIM, which I did not have much time for at all BTW.
compared to the 'spiritual' folk, I find it easier to be around religious people because they are at least consistent and predictable in their attitudes and beliefs. And their ethical code of behavior is largely decent and consistent as well, except for the rare fanatics.
Stef said to Mr Nil, "you are into the wallowing." I think the darkness is definitely addictive. The question becomes for me, "Is reason enough to pull one out of it?" Had I found Stef back then, would he and FDR have been enough? The answer is absolutely not. There is no real structure here, there is no true community in the way I knew it with the "evolving consciousness" community I was involved with. Still, I don't want to get stuck there and make assumptions about others.
I think this is an important point Mishelle. It has been my experience that people have to be ready to hear, to accept, and be able to assimilate the 'truth', whatever that might be. A nihilist, or a religious person, just like an addict, they have to be ready, open, or perhaps 'broken open' enough to let it in.
That is why I don't think it is helpful to prescribe for other people. If they come to you, it certainly may be helpful to them to share your own experience of how you got to where you are, because, presumably they come to you because they see something in you that they think might help them. If you are a good therapist, then you may be able to walk them thru their own experiences to help them see the truth on their own. If they are ready.
what do you guys think of this perspective?
-
the f#%*king elves have a church!!??? I just lost all respect for them...
-
-always been a restless, questioning, challenging, history (alternative) buff, what's the bottom line kind of person
-brought up RC and spit out the dogma when I reached age of formal operations.
-spent years studying alternative spiritual traditions and dove into the new age movement stuff.
-started loosing too much $ in the financial markets and began to study economic and monetary stuff, which led me into conspiracy stuff and Ron Paul and Peter Joeseph's movies and Alex Jones, David Icke, etc.
-never a fan of politics and have never participated in the voting nonsense in my life so anarchy was no stretch for me.
-heard Larken Rose on Red Ice radio, I really like his approach to anarchy.
-hated those philosophy classes in university where we spent all the time discussing random 'what if' stuff, so I am still trying to get used to the concept that anything practical has anything to do with philosophy so I am learning about that.
-can't remember where I first heard Stef but he is as close to my own way of thinking of anyone I have ever heard. he also cured me of the conspiracy bug, not that a lot of it isn't valid, but with a single quote from a video about 911 he dismissed it all and put it into perspective...
"So what? Even if the theories are true, its like giving a speeding ticket to a serial killer"
-
OK this conversation has become borderline amazing for me, thank y'all!
Not that I've processed through it all, but the role-play in the first interview was very cool. They were both very effective and I could see very much how something like that in the arts (kinda like 'the conversation' piece) would be good. In it I found myself in that place again responding to the earlier quote I liked: "Yes, sour grapes, cause the grapes are fucking sour asshole!" hehe
I also thought, unfortunately nihilism is the cultural push at the moment, it seems to me. It's like Alex Jones--"if you're not pissed off you're not paying attention." I realize he's not a nihilist, but he's attitude, comportment and some theories seem kinda the same. Still, I still listen on occasion! I like entertainment as much as the next girl.
I noticed Stef said in the last one, ". . . fight for your soul." Hmmm, soul? That pesky evasive language!
The best of it all though, was "You won't take up arms against the darkness!" And this is exactly it. He summed up right there what the lack was in the spirituality movement is for me. They think they are doing this, they want to do this, I really believe. But I didn't feel they were really taking up arms, I felt they were trying to build cathedrals in a swamp. "Building the plane as we're flying it," they say. Hmmm, I don't think that product would last long in the market
Interesting thread.
Never went down the nihilist path, not my thing, but I agree that the whole angry at the world thing turns me off the Alex Jones style world view, and I think it is more than a little dangerous.
I agree with Kevin, just because it was part of my path and process, I would not recommend anything of my experience to others to help them get to this place. Sharing experiences my be helpful in some situations.
I have not listened to the interview you reference but I am especially curious about the quote: "You won't take up arms against the darkness!"
Can you elaborate on that one for me Mishelle?
-
yeah, thanks FreedomPhilosophy, I used all those same arguments and that is where it ended, I got no response after that except things like, "we will never agree, so this is pointless..."
-
...we need to end U.S. military presence throughout the world and end the development of more, and more sophisticated, and deadly weapons justified on the insane belief that it is the answer to our continued peace and safety. As long as U.S. citizens justify and believe in the violent approach, this country will falter and other non-violent cultural nations will rise both economically and socially, having learned that if you live by the sword, you will die by it as well.
I completely agree with everything you are saying, I just wince when I hear phrases like 'we need to..." It sounds so statist to me. Like we can somehow control governments or that we can or should collectively enforce some sort of social policies.
Ok, here are some of the responses that I got to similar statements like yours:
I've been having some exchanges on this topic yesterday and using the following points:
1) our freedoms have reduced over the last 100 years of war, if soldiers believe in freedom why do they fight for the institutions that takes our freedoms away?
"I used to travel all over the world without a passport before 911."
2) Is there any compelling evidence Hitler was and could take over mainland Britain?
"So we are just supposed to wait and see how far he wants to go, how many more will be slaughtered and enslaved? Aren't we supposed to help others who are being murdered and oppressed? What do you propose, that we sit and let it happen?"
3) WWII was too late to prevent most of the genocide and what about the millions subject to genocide in the UUSR, and China - no help for those victims because the perpetrator was too powerful?
"Like Patton said, we should have taken out the Russians while they were weak at the end of the war" How do you propose we stop genocide then ?"
4) The Swiss and others managed to preserve their independence without getting involved in warfare.
"that didn't help the others very much did it?"5) If people really feel so passionately about defending a remote underclass from genocide/oppression they are free to go and do so as mercenaries on the side of their choosing. There's no need to compel everyone else's involvement via the state.
"that is not realistic. National defense cannot be voluntary or we wouldn't be able to fend off crazy dictators like Hitler. Sometimes you have to all buy into a program to make it efficient and powerful enough to effective."6) wars should not be detached from the madness of the people who make them possible or from the financial and poltiical benefactors who agitate for them
-
wow that bigfoot video is cool, certainly looks like a dude in a suit.
the Obama anti-christ thing, well, I don't even know what to think of that.
-
I think it is amazing that 14% of voters believe in bigfoot, that is a lot. conversely, it is certainly verifiable and obvious that the psychiatric profession can only prescribe drugs for behavioral conditions that are officially categorized as 'diseases' and they add new things to the list every year, including stuff like 'road rage', and yet, the same % of people don't see that one and its written right on the bottle! Much less than 15% of the people I know have ever seen a bigfoot and I live at sasquatch ground zero.
-
having a debate with some members over at another forum over the remembrance day (veteran's day) - "honoring the heroic soldiers who died for our freedoms" kind of thing.
the bottom line used by the defenders of war and the military always comes down to how would you stop genocide - WWII and Hitler is the trump card example that is always played. as well as crazy muslims terrorists.
what do you say to these people?
-
Good for you Sven, congrats! All the best. Man, I would love to go to those gigs with all that vegan raw food...
-
A frequent mistake made in the liberty movement is thinking that the State is the source of the problem. It isn't. It's simply a symptom of an underlying problem.
Even if it were possible to magically remove the State in an instant, the decadence responsible for creating the State would remain.
I don't think I would say decadence is responsible for creating the state. Most of the decadence we see is because of the state and certainly if you remove the state people will look to replace it with something similar because that is what they know and understand. In the same way that a child who is raised in an abusing family setting will behave as if violence is normal (maybe that is Chris' problem).
Is it not the case that the underlying problem that the state, or any authoritarian structure is a symptom of, is the illusion or myth of authority, or the legitimacy of authority and a ruling class, the millennial old brainwashing of the 'divine right of kings'?
Without that, people would simply walk away from bullies (the state) and ignore them.
-
I have an intuition about what PJ means by "structural violence." But I think the term is highly problematic and unhelpful. I wish he would stop using it and replace it with more concrete, specific terms.
I can't provide an example of "structural violence" of any kind without a clear definition of it, which I have yet to hear.
I could take a guess that one of the main things people like PJ worry about, which they express in the term "structural violence," is hoarding of resources and opportunities. But I wish he would just say "hoarding" and then talk about the problems of hoarding directly. Some might say hoarding is enabled by the state, some might disagree. But at least then people could talk directly about what the concern is. "Structural violence" is too general to even know what it refers to in my view.
I understand Ster. I too was confused and curious about the term and how it was used and not at all clearly defined.
Still, I am pretty sure PJ used the prostitution example, as well as the one of a man abusing his family because he was down and out in the work situation, and the personal example of his own work related difficulties as directly caused by 'structural violence'. Have I got that wrong?
Would the 'hoarding' thing be based on the idea that PJ raised about amassing resources at the expense of others because of scarcity - he seemed to suggest that it was a psychological imperative of some sort, but never really made much of a case for that either. I would be interested to hear the case you would make for the 'hoarding' thing.
-
STer, can you provide examples of structural violence in society that are not symptomatic of state influence? Or has that been done and I missed it. I remember PJ mentioning how a woman was forced into prostitution because she could not get by, and that this was an example of structural violence, yet it was easily explained away by other factors.
-
yes, was a good story, until i watched the de-bunked video
always a good idea to google the subject and 'debunked' - the debunker is a christian, but the information he uses has no ideology http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnV0cJgTRiM
good call bootoo. I did go over a bunch of reviews and none of them were very convincing or well researched or substantiated. That guy did an ok job but a lot of his logical assumptions about why things could not have been are just that, no evidence or historical references provided to back up his claims. this guy does a better job of dubunking Atwill's claims I think.
-
Has anyone read Joeseph Atwill's book or seen the documentary? It is called "Caesar's Messiah, the roman conspiracy to invent Jesus" where he goes over the evidence that points to the idea that the Flavian Caesars created the character of Jesus and the christian religion as a political tool to subjugate and pacify the flock, and esp the messianic movements of the time that were a threat to the empire.
You can do a search and find a couple very good interviews he did for Redice radio.
It is a fascinating and novel historical perspective and worth considering if you like that sort of thing. I do. I also believe that religion and politics, or the state, are two sides of the same coin of control used by the ruling elite. They are both, at their foundation, systems of control where the 'subjects' are brainwashed into bowing to authority.
-
When I first heard Peter Joseph talk about structural violence in the video debate with Stef I was curious to learn exactly what he meant by that and wanted to understand if it was different from the kind of human misery that is simply caused by the virus of state intervention in society.
PJ never defined it specifically in the debate and Stef never asked him to do that directly so I started to ask around here. My desire to understand was genuine even though some members here questioned my motives. It looks like friendlyhacker dude has been bucked off this debate and I am having trouble understanding his motives for sure.
As for the whole structural violence thing, I posted a video link in the other thread where Stef does address it directly and together with subsequent posts on the forum and in this thread I can really see no evidence of how it is anything but a bunch of nasty stuff caused by state intervention.
What is Reality?
in Philosophy
Posted
good explanation pepin.
"Ghosts and god are completely invalid examples of the sort of claim."
Why exactly is that the case. Articulate that argument for me please.