Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reality. Show all posts

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Three Levels of Reality.

Sep 6, 2015 -- 9:52PM,  wrote:
In the same respects since our very first example of something that is true and certain is our self/self-awareness.     By what logic would I hop to accept anything else as being more certain or true?

I think this is important because when we attempt to measure our self/self-awareness.   It cannot be found,  it holds no weight and with heavy scrutiny it doesn't even exist.Utiltheo

Cogito, ergo sum. That the external world can influence my thinking is strong evidence that it exists as observed.  The fact that I can affect the external world is additional evidence that I exist if needed.  Solipsism ultimately fails as the external world can affect my thoughts in unpredictable ways and my effects can also be contrary to my intent. 

The external world can be thought of as consisting of three levels of reality that can affect thinking. 

Objective or sentient reality, that which can be observed, measured, and manipulated with physical tools but not directly with the mind with the exception that the mind controls most physical tools that manipulate sentient reality beginning in humans with the hand.   

Mythical reality consists of memes generally consistently understood across cultures and languages.  Mythical memes can strongly dominate thinking if they are introduced early enough in a person's life.  Note that most mythical memes are fairy tales and folklore in language that can be understood by small children and generally are one dimensional good vs. evil, obedience vs. sin, etc.  Nuance and interpretation may come later in life but generally that interpretation only reinforces the meme. Mythical reality is ultimately the creation of humans for the regulation of their cultures(s.) God(s) are frequent memes in mythical reality but all are created by humans commonly in their own image writ large.   

Fictional reality is a tool for manipulating minds, mythical reality and occasionally sentient reality but is more limited than mythical reality in that it is language and culture specific, although the best are translatable across languages and cultures.  Fictional reality normally has an identifiable creator, and includes art and music as well as the written word.  The memes generated by fictional reality can approach mythical memes in power and utility. 

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Imaginary Reality

But until we have good evidence of their existence, they don't exist for us. The best an example can be is in the 'probably real' subset of the set of 'imaginary things'.

Thus for any specific candidate, like a real Donald Duck, a real teapot in orbit beyond Mars, a real Higgs boson or (if only we knew what a god is) a real god, it doesn't exist until we have good evidence of its existence. Blü

I would as usual include in the existence category any imaginary thing that is consistently describable by any rational human who has been exposed to the imaginary concept.  Donald Duck is an imaginary thing that is a charicature of a duck, which wears a naval themed vest and hat and speaks aphorisms of determinable levels of satirical, ironic, and metaphorical truth.  Therefore, Donald Duck objectively exists.   The teapot was not adequately described even by Russell to be consistently describable by any rational human and therefore remains in the set of imaginary things with no real existence. 

A real God may exist for a group of people but generally the description is about as defined as Russell's teapot so that for the rational human must remain in the category of imaginary thing.  As an example Zeus may be considered a real God for the ancient Greeks.  Uniformly describable as a charicature of a human man, wielding lightning bolts as a weapon, and speaking aphorisms of determinable levels of satirical, ironic, and metaphorical truth.  He was even clearly described enough to be made into statues recognizable by any rational Greek as Zeus.  

The problem with God in the thread title, is that all believers describe Herm differently if they describe Herm at all in recognizable terms, and therefore the rational human has no consistent evidence to determine any sort of existence even as an imaginary thing. 

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

What is Reality

beliefnet et al
I find it useful to distinguish between

  1. Mythical reality (including religions) which is a widely recognized group of mythical characters and situations that are generally accepted as being real and useful by a culture.  It is not necessary to have read the Brothers Grimm to know about Little Red Riding hood.
  2. Fictional reality which is a group of fictional characters and situations which those wishing to suspend disbelief for the duration of the fictional events, or the discussion of them are treated as real. 
  3. Observable reality which are characters and situations that can be shown to be real to all rational observers.  Note that truth values are not a given in observable reality.  

Feb 9, 2015 -- 7:09AM, Blü wrote:

That Christianity's propositions accord with reality.

Ah. So when you say Christianity is 'true', you mean it accords with imaginary reality, not objective reality.

Further thanks for clearing that up.

I think a better word per Shermer would be accord with belief reality. 

The brain has objectively observable belief centers that interpret reality in ways that enhance survivability.  On the savannah interpreting certain patterns in the windblown grass as a tiger, may have survival benefits even though the reality is that they are only wind effects. 

In a society controlled by vuvuzelas mediating for a vicious, vengeful God it may be a survival benefit to believe in a vicious, vengeful God even though reality is that it is vicious, vengeful vuvuzelas that should be feared. 
Feb 9, 2015 -- 8:09PM, Blü wrote:
As for all other "realities", while the brain and its functions are part of objective reality, the contents of its concepts do not necessarily have objective counterparts ie don't refer to things with objective reality. Examples are 'unicorn', 'two', 'supernatural being', 'justice', 'Donald Duck', 'some chairs' and so on.

Rationaist BS is no different from other BSNo matter how many times you explain that 'Donald Duck' is a real fictional character, the realities of which can be discussed by anyone familiar with Disney™ movies, tv shows, comic books, etc. a rationalist will insist that 'Donald Duck' is imaginary with no objective reality. 

As Blü himself has discussed 'Donald Duck' has three fingers and a thumb on each 'wing,' is anthropomorphic, talks English in English speaking countries but is multilingual, generally wears a blue sailor hat, a blue man's shirt, and a red bow tie.  This is factual information that exists independently of any person's mind and can in fact be verified by a search of Donald Duck images.

I might suggest that 'Donald Duck" is real for a majority of the people in the world, whereas something like a benzene ring exists only in the imagination of a few chemists SEMs are fakes, and frequently involves a snake biting its own tail even for chemists. 

'Donald Duck©' is so real that if someone imagines a similar anthropomorphic duck and tries to publish a comic book based on the character hesh would have a major legal battle on herm hands to establish that the imagined duck was sufficiently different in reality to not infringe on the Disney Copyright. 

Feb 11, 2015 -- 9:53AM, Blü wrote:


a rationalist will insist that 'Donald Duck' is imaginary with no objective reality.

We have descriptions and images and impersonations of Donald Duck. However, no real Donald Duck exists outside of imagination. He's a fictitious being.

No one has ever maintained that Donald Duck is a being.  Just that he is a fictitious reality.  A reality that exists and is independently verifiable by any rational person independent of anyone's imagination. 

Please note the working of the conceptual block which changes "reality" into "being."  It doesn't really change anything but provides a mental fig leaf to cover the "reality" of the fictional "being" as "being" can be interpreted as a once or presently living touchable, interacting entity.  All of which is critically important to denying God as a Mythical (religious) reality.   

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Belief, Truth, Reality, and Learning


I believe nothing as beliefs are incompatible with that learning. The mind is configured to protect beliefs, and the only counter is to root out the beliefs, be aware of them and be ready to sprinkle a little salt on them as needed.

What do you mean here? Of course you believe things about reality. Are you just saying you are open to changing your currently tentatively held beliefs?

I define "belief" as an emotionally accepted truth that needs no verification.  "God exists" is a belief.  "Fox News is fair and balanced" is a belief.  According to noted skeptic Michael Shermer in The Believing Brain beliefs come first and are defended later.   He further argues with strong scientific backing that information that tends to weaken or refute the belief is not even processed by the brain.  "Fox News is BS" is not even heard by a believer in Fox News. The "La, la, la, I can't hear you" is not figurative according to Shermer, it is a true statement.
I don't confuse "belief" with "true" in regard to statements or "real" in regard to the material world.  Both "true" and "real" are ultimately verifiable by independent means.  "You are 33" is a statement that I tentatively accept as true, but if someone else said it is false, we could resolve the dispute factually with documentation.  "The chair is real" can be verified by sitting on it.  You need not believe the chair is real.  If you were concerned you would sit tentatively and if it seemed substantial possibly rock on it to verify that it is functional as a chair.   

Monday, June 4, 2012


Funny thing is that reality has a "liberal bias". Steven Guy

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

The Mass and reality.

Outward and Inward Man - Beliefnet
I can't speak for others, but religion is not about reciting the mass and feeling all warm and fuzzy in the arms of God for me. It's a journey, and a journey that sometimes takes us to the darkest parts of ourselves, where I can assure you it isn't all warm and fuzzy.

There is sacredness to life.

J'C: "I never implied differently. But those who have never 'Dragged the mass into the lab' probably have less appreciation for the either the warm fuzzies or the 'darkest parts of ourselves.' Especially the question of Death. I have (as an atheist, spent countless hours with the Et Expecto, and the Dies Irae of the requiem. I have tried to figure out what this meant to believers and by extension what it could mean to me. I do not believe in life after death, and yet the lab tells me that both of these sections are teaching a powerful lesson. Have you considered those lessons? The question is rhetorical. many have most have not. And yet the mass as a whole whether sung or chanted by a bored priest is a work of art that can be appreciated for itself without analysis or picking apart, but like a rainbow understanding the 'physics' of it adds to not subtracts from the wonder and beauty."