[iltos]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Ask yourself why the public may choose to not believe in reality. Ask yourself why the public chooses (on its own) to escape from reality.

simple....it's 'cause of evolution
"reality" is just an organism's response to the environment, isn't it? science, religion, money, work, drugs, sneezes, and sex are just some of those responses -at some basic level, human responses all share one thing with every other life form: they are just the result of processing sensory input.....
our processor just has a well developed ability to work around the subject/object barrier, and so includes itself in its results.

it can become a dangerous, destructive loop, but it's not the same as "not believing in" or "escaping" reality, imo

it's as much a part of our reality as a flame is to the reality of a moth.

It remains a joint task of both Science and Religion to unite the human psyche to achieve a true understanding of the differences between reality and faith.

I my view, Science and Religion are but two sides of the same coin.

i see your point....i'd just add that it worth considering that both science and religion are just two results of the loop

now back to deciding which response is to the environment is "real"

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

...................
"reality" is just an organism's response to the environment, isn't it? .....................

Not that I can see, Bob.
Reality is a state of being which we describe by means of perception.
And the choosing of those tools is what gets us into threads that never end

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Not that I can see, Bob.
Reality is a state of being which we describe by means of perception.

but isn't this just a response to an environment where the subject/object barrier has been tweaked by evolution?
the fact that we are not limited to purely instinctual responses -a preprogrammed form of perception- has only allowed us the potential to integrate "state of being" into the skill set of our responses to the environment....it could be argued scientifically, i'd wager, that the result has been to make perception a part of reality....isn't that what quantum mechanics has noticed?

And the choosing of those tools is what gets us into threads that never end

most of the time, it seems we don't actually "choose" them....leastways, not in the way our brains were seemingly designed to respond to the environment...conciousness fails us when responses based on perception sink to the level of instinct


i've always thought that was this thread was REALLY about

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

but isn't this just a response to an environment where the subject/object barrier has been tweaked by evolution?..................

Are you implying reality is a response?
Physical laws , matter and energy are elements of reality (existence) and what we perceive are the reactions among those elements that lead to describing those elements.
Evolution is one of those reactions , a response of those elements in biological terms.
Response and reality are intimately related. No reality, nothing to present a response. The existence of a response defines an element of reality. I don't see how one can be denied with out denying the other.

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Are you implying reality is a response?

it would be foolish of me to assert that to you Jack

it's certain that when i'm done with this post and hit the submit button, the information it contains will end up on your screen according to laws of matter and energy i'm not even knowledgable enough to explain...but they are reality and are independant of whatever my response is

but your momentary perception of reality created by this environment will be more influenced by the information than the laws defining its transmission.

because that information (this post) is a response both defined by the reality of an environment unique to this particular confluence of the laws of matter and energy, and my perception of existance within that environment.....based on a perception of this environment as being a public forum, for example, and so different from other forms of language and communication....and on my perception of communicating a non-linear philosophical distinction to guy with a predispostion towards the linearity of logic.

those enviromental factors are just as real to me as the enviroment governing the transmission of this post.

in this moment of time and space, then, my reality is different from a firefly lighting up in response to its enviroment -as an instinctual result of cause and effect- ONLY because my perception of the environment -while limited to the confines of a reality detemined by the laws of matter and energy- is "free to move about the cabin" and free to attempt to determine/understand/manipulate my place in this reality according to my perceptions.

it's an evolutionary complexity shared by other mammals, to be sure, but we are unique, imo, in the depth of our ability to manifest internal stimuli....to manifest perception by integrating it with laws of matter and energy.

in that sense, then -yes- human reality is a response.

[shibboleth]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Hi shibboleth,

I am not sure that the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was as you say. We can only deal with what we know today. For example, what of the Inquisition? What of the Vatican today hoarding Gospels in its research archives? Politics and Religions just do not mix. Faith is and always has been an individual matter. Belief is quite another thing, however.

The Inquisition and the hoarding of manuscripts by the Vatican are both examples of what Christianity's largest and most powerful representative today, Catholicism, has done to the world, not what has happened to Christianity. My point was that if the early church had been left to itself instead of being raised up on a political pedestal it would have either fizzled out or evolved along different lines. In fact, if the 1st century church had been left to itself there never would have been an Inquisition...

Ask yourself why the public may choose to not believe in reality. Ask yourself why the public chooses (on its own) to escape from reality. It is not the failure of Science and Science educators - it is the failure of those of little faith who do not know how to separate reality from wishful thinking.

I'm not certain that the public chooses anything anymore, at least not without having to navigate an enormous maze of propaganda, media half-truths, corporate mind-control, political public-relations scams (The same men who sell you dog-food sold you your current president.) and shameless liars of every shape color and persuasion...
And even if the public were given a level playing-field and a fair array of choices the average man or woman is lousy at choosing what is truly good for him/her anyway. In fact, if you ask me, the average human
being prefers slavery and dishonesty to freedom and truth. Freedom, real freedom takes too much work and the truth is often ugly and disturbing. Better to lean back and enjoy a smooth ride into slavery while enjoying all the pretty scenery than to sweat and labor for freedom in a world that is not always pleasing to the eye.


It remains a joint task of both Science and Religion to unite the human psyche to achieve a true understanding of the differences between reality and faith.

Dangerous talk!

I my view, Science and Religion are but two sides of the same coin. For example, is not Science one of God's good works? And if one chooses not to believe in any one of God's good works, then is this not exhibiting a lack of faith in God?

Again, for the sake of clarity, I'm a Deist, not a Christian. In my view neither science nor religion are Gods works except through extension or association. Man has produced both science and religion himself and both are the result of natural causes begun but not guided by the Creator.

If one chooses to lead their life wisely, they come to understand that there is more that humanity has in common with all living and non-living things upon this Earth - all the works of what is called God!

I agree.

One other point, the Creation Museum was not built on Scientific evidence, it was built on the fantasy of those whom have an axe to grind. They will be ginding their axes for a very long time, and when they find that their axes are getting no sharper, perhaps they will try to resolve their faith or lack thereof, and accept reality for what it is, instead of wishing it different according to their interpretation according to the Bible - a great work of literature for sure, but hardly an accurate rendition of reality in the past, present or in the future.

-- Tom

I guess the above is true, although it hardly seems to matter when measured against the effects of State Sanctioned Religions in other parts of the world...a subject too often ignored in this forum. Those who follow the extreme Islamic system of belief and apply it in a political fashion as they do in Iran and Iraq and all over the middle-east will show you how wrong you are about grinding axes...wether an axe is dull or sharp makes little difference when you find your own neck on the chopping-block.

[shibboleth]

I'll get to you tonite, Stoner, as early as I can...I wouldn't want to be held responsible for you laboring beneath the weight of so many illusions for too long... :-)

Your friend, Wayne

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

it would be foolish of me to assert that to you Jack

it's certain that when i'm done with this post and hit the submit button, the information it contains will end up on your screen according to laws of matter and energy i'm not even knowledgable enough to explain...but they are reality and are independant of whatever my response is





because that information (this post) is a response both defined by the reality of an environment unique to this particular confluence of the laws of matter and energy, and my perception of existance within that environment.....based on a perception of this environment as being a public forum, for example, and so different from other forms of language and communication....and on my perception of communicating a non-linear philosophical distinction to guy with a predispostion towards the linearity of logic.

those enviromental factors are just as real to me as the enviroment governing the transmission of this post.

in this moment of time and space, then, my reality is different from a firefly lighting up in response to its enviroment -as an instinctual result of cause and effect- ONLY because my perception of the environment -while limited to the confines of a reality detemined by the laws of matter and energy- is "free to move about the cabin" and free to attempt to determine/understand/manipulate my place in this reality according to my perceptions.

it's an evolutionary complexity shared by other mammals, to be sure, but we are unique, imo, in the depth of our ability to manifest internal stimuli....to manifest perception by integrating it with laws of matter and energy.

in that sense, then -yes- human reality is a response.

it would be foolish of me to assert that to you Jack

LOL!.......I'm just an old retired sweetcorn farmer

it's certain that when i'm done with this post and hit the submit button, the information it contains will end up on your screen according to laws of matter and energy i'm not even knowledgable enough to explain...but they are reality and are independant of whatever my response is

OK

but your momentary perception of reality created by this environment will be more influenced by the information than the laws defining its transmission.

Pointing out that your perception will be influenced by the tools you use to gather that information of this 'environment'.
The 'environment' exists within reality, does it not? Many environments eist and many of them overlap. But one environment is not all of reality, it's merely a 'division' of reality and defined by perception.
So transmission of information is a fixed value.....it's the interpretation that varies and that's dependent upon the 'tool' used to gather and means for deciphering.
So...the 'tool' used has considerable influence..... or variance, than the transmitted information has ....because that value is fixed. It's perception that has issues with variance, not reality..

because that information (this post) is a response both defined by the reality of an environment unique to this particular confluence of the laws of matter and energy, and my perception of existance within that environment.....based on a perception of this environment as being a public forum, for example, and so different from other forms of language and communication....and on my perception of communicating a non-linear philosophical distinction to guy with a predispostion towards the linearity of logic.

You are assuming your perception was correct .....as I also would of my own.

those enviromental factors are just as real to me as the enviroment governing the transmission of this post.

Ummmm......one is a statement of 'claimed' fact, the other a discussion of those facts.
I'm having difficulty understanding your direction.
How can a discussion of reality be anything more than a 'reflection'/study of existence?
The discussion is not reality or an element of reality, it's an expressed perception.

in this moment of time and space, then, my reality is different from a firefly lighting up in response to its enviroment -as an instinctual result of cause and effect- ONLY because my perception of the environmen

No.
The realities are equivalent......all elements of existence are present....it's perception that differs. Environments are different as you and the firefly compete and live in differing parameters. Your chemistry is altered for different services and the 'tools' used to perceive reality radically different.
Reality remains the same. the environment is the variable.

while limited to the confines of a reality detemined by the laws of matter and energy- is "free to move about the cabin" and free to attempt to determine/understand/manipulate my place in this reality according to my perceptions.

That would be overlapping environments, Bob.....same reality, though.

it's an evolutionary complexity shared by other mammals, to be sure, but we are unique, imo, in the depth of our ability to manifest internal stimuli....to manifest perception by integrating it with laws of matter and energy.

in that sense, then -yes- human reality is a response.

That is just so sad

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by shibboleth

I'll get to you tonite, Stoner, as early as I can...I wouldn't want to be held responsible for you laboring beneath the weight of so many illusions for too long... :-)

Your friend, Wayne

Hi Wayne

Going to try another rant tonight?

[brillser]

I see the new Sims 3 is out....

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Stoner

LOL!.......I'm just an old retired sweetcorn farmer

yeah, and i'm just an old carpenter.....we live 2000 miles apart
in a different reality, we wouldn't even have clue each other existed......

OK

yay....at least i understand something

The 'environment' exists within reality, does it not? Many environments eist and many of them overlap. But one environment is not all of reality, it's merely a 'division' of reality and defined by perception.

okey doke....i see your point

So transmission of information is a fixed value.....it's the interpretation that varies and that's dependent upon the 'tool' used to gather and means for deciphering.

i don't follow this though....the transmission of information isn't fixed.....unless i miss your meaning, it is dependant on the tool used to transmit it....if i drove the 2000 miles and talked to you about this in person, the transmission of the information would still be subject to the laws of matter and energy, but the tools defining its transmission would have changed
creating a different enviroment, and altering our perceptions of it.....you would, for example, realize you were talking to a crazy person.

I'm having difficulty understanding your direction.
How can a discussion of reality be anything more than a 'reflection'/study of existence?
The discussion is not reality or an element of reality, it's an expressed perception.

so...i think you're saying that the manifestion of internal perception into the material world -human flight for example- has only altered the environment in which we perceive reality?

hmmm...interesting.....i can see the scientific truth in that
but it still strikes me that our interaction is as much a part of reality as the fence in my front yard, a grain of sand at the beach 30 miles from here, the pollen in ohio, or a star being born 10,000 light years away.
the truth of science in this discussion is that it reconstructs the subject/object barrier...and this is essential to our ability to view reality mechanistically, which has an undeniable value, especially in this threads like this one

perhaps it's enough to point out that the mechaniistic nature of reality has given rise to life, and throught its evolution, the catalyst for responses made necessary by existence in reality have been transformed from instinct to perception....marking (very simplisitcally) the dissolution of the subject/object barrier, imo.

much of human history has concerned itself with the results of that dissolution, transforming -if not the mechanistic nature of reality- our abilities to use those mechanisms

and were only 50,000 years out of the gate...should perception prove to be a viable adaptation, one can't help but wonder what another 100,000,000 years of working with that subject/object barrier might do.

That is just so sad

nah....just speculative....it is my nature, ya know

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by iltos

................

i don't follow this though....the transmission of information isn't fixed.....unless i miss your meaning, it is dependant on the tool used to transmit it....if i drove the 2000 miles and talked to you about this in person, the transmission of the information would still be subject to the laws of matter and energy, but the tools defining its transmission would have changed
creating a different enviroment, and altering our perceptions of it.....you would, for example, realize you were talking to a crazy person.


so...i think you're saying that the manifestion of internal perception into the material world -human flight for example- has only altered the environment in which we perceive reality?

hmmm...interesting.....i can see the scientific truth in that
but it still strikes me that our interaction is as much a part of reality as the fence in my front yard, a grain of sand at the beach 30 miles from here, the pollen in ohio, or a star being born 10,000 light years away.
the truth of science in this discussion is that it reconstructs the subject/object barrier...and this is essential to our ability to view reality mechanistically, which has an undeniable value, especially in this threads like this one

perhaps it's enough to point out that the mechaniistic nature of reality has given rise to life, and throught its evolution, the catalyst for responses made necessary by existence in reality have been transformed from instinct to perception....marking (very simplisitcally) the dissolution of the subject/object barrier, imo.

much of human history has concerned itself with the results of that dissolution, transforming -if not the mechanistic nature of reality- our abilities to use those mechanisms

and were only 50,000 years out of the gate...should perception prove to be a viable adaptation, one can't help but wonder what another 100,000,000 years of working with that subject/object barrier might do.


nah....just speculative....it is my nature, ya know

i don't follow this though....the transmission of information isn't fixed.....unless i miss your meaning, it is dependant on the tool used to transmit it.

There is no tool for transmission...only a tool for reception.
What exists is there to be perceived, our limitation is by the efficiency of our 'tools'.
Be it eyes, nose, touch or a scientific instrument.....perception is of that which exists and the relationships of it's elements. We collect data from those relationships. What we don't perceive is what is not detected/detectable.
That would be the comparison of perception between you and the firefly.
You both exist in the same reality, but you both perceive it differently.
The information is the same, the 'tools' for perception quite different and the information sets perceived are going to vary.

creating a different enviroment, and altering our perceptions of it.....you would, for example, realize you were talking to a crazy person.

Indeed. Fodder for the pot thread

so...i think you're saying that the manifestion of internal perception into the material world -human flight for example- has only altered the environment in which we perceive reality?

hmmm...interesting.....i can see the scientific truth in that

I think so

but it still strikes me that our interaction is as much a part of reality as the fence in my front yard, a grain of sand at the beach 30 miles from here, the pollen in ohio, or a star being born 10,000 light years away.

That's environment. It exists, but like the page of a book, only displays a limited version/slice of the whole. Like the single page that only describes a 'moment' in a story......an environment as you described .....presents an incomplete description of reality. Again....an issue of perception.

the truth of science in this discussion is that it reconstructs the subject/object barrier...and this is essential to our ability to view reality mechanistically, which has an undeniable value, especially in this threads like this one

Picking corn was never this difficult
I've got to mull over this 'barrier' concept.
The 'tool' could relate to this barrier in terms of efficiency and correctness.....but beyond that, I'm having trouble seeing science as reconstruction of a barrier.....more like a tool to derive an explanation of the subject/object's existence by eliminating barriers.

perhaps it's enough to point out that the mechaniistic nature of reality has given rise to life, and throught its evolution, the catalyst for responses made necessary by existence in reality have been transformed from instinct to perception....marking (very simplisitcally) the dissolution of the subject/object barrier, imo.

Again...this 'subject/object barrier' is something I'm having trouble relating to, positively or negatively.
Could you explain it further?

just speculative....it is my nature,

The trait of a thinker........

[Drabdr]

So when this thread gets close to 5,000, will the new thread "Evolve" from this thread, or will a new one be "Created"??

[Drabdr]

Originally Posted by brillser

I see the new Sims 3 is out....

Heck, Brillser, I'm not even got Sims 1.

It's been a long time since I have played Sims. I loved Sims City.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by Drabdr

So when this thread gets close to 5,000, will the new thread "Evolve" from this thread, or will a new one be "Created"??

The 'new' thread will be continuation #5 !!!!