Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KaelGotDwarves]

Kael, the assumption both make is that truth must be univalent, eternal, and present itself in the same way to everyone, and so on.  People can experience Truth in different ways (just think about the blind men and the elephant story), all partaking of the same entity, without it being false.

Yes. There's something I have found that is important is that whether you're objectivist or subjectivist or whatever: you're going to learn much more about the nature of reality if you are not attached to one dogma or paradigm - and open yourself up to the fact that you might simply be mistaken, seeing things differently, and realise that we are unable to encounter a vast majority of the human experiences in this short life - then this opens oneself up to a lifetime of learning and beauty.

[kaijyuu]

@leafsnail
 

The tools we use to detect those convert what they see into one of our five senses. They do not directly send signals to our brains. Using a tool does not somehow mean we're using something other than sight, taste, etc to experience the world.

Think a little.

[Bauglir]

As a side note, stuff like the Matrix wouldn't be at all compelling if empiricism didn't have holes. We can only experience the world, empirically, through our 5 senses; what's to say nothing is beyond that?

Certainly not mainstream science, which is currently looking into particles that you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste (such as neutrinos).

All of which must be measured with instruments whose output can be read by our senses, and which must be designed according to principles derived from sensory information. It's entirely possible that these senses are incomplete and there is some additional aspect to reality that is utterly undetectable. Of course, my response to that is, "So what difference does it make?" so ultimately I still come back to empiricism for pretty much everything it's applicable to.

Still, I'm not aware of any aspect of science that's succeeded at measuring qualia in anything that could be described as an effective manner, and I'm skeptical that it's possible. I cannot imagine how any amount of knowledge about the structure of the components of apple pie could lead to an effective way of conveying the sensation of its smell - what you'd need is near-perfect knowledge of the nervous system of the person you're trying to communicate to. Neurobiology has certainly made progress in quantifying phenomena associated with sensations, but that's hardly the same thing. As anyone who's tried to do tech support over the phone (on either end) can probably tell you, there's a lot your senses pick up on that's difficult to put into words, or even realize you need to put into words.

[Leafsnail]

The tools we use to detect those convert what they see into one of our five senses. They do not directly send signals to our brains. Using a tool does not somehow mean we're using something other than sight, taste, etc to experience the world.

Think a little.

We can directly send signals to brains via electrodes, but I guess that isn't your point.  I didn't realise quite how far I was meant to interpret your words.

It's entirely possible that these sense are incomplete and there is some additional aspect to reality that is utterly undetectable. Of course, my response to that is, "So what difference does it make?" so ultimately I still come back to empiricism for pretty much everything it's applicable to.

Yeah.  As far as I'm concerned, if something cannot ever be detected in any way at all, it doesn't exist in my world and I don't care about it (and to be honest, I'm don't see how faith would help me in this area at all).  Maybe I could speculate if I were some kind of extremely clever being who could simply deduce those kind of things, but I'm not, so I'll stick to things that can be detected in my world.

[Tack]

As far as I can tell, is that the major problem with Religion is that it takes the majority of it's views from books written when the religion began. And because these are viewed as sacred they can never be changed. And that's the problem - religion needs to change with society as science does. And we'll look up into the stars as science pushes us along, and the more progressive religious people will be struggling to re-define their texts in order to keep up with the frantic pace of humanity, while the most conservative ones will be denouncing proven facts as blasphemy.

In the end, you'll either be ignoring sections of your faith so that you can continue to believe that the god you're defying loves you, or you'll hold strong to all of it - deny the world, trust in your book and become the Westboro Baptist Church.


So... Back to Sex and Marriage.
I actually do believe that Classical conditioning can play a small part in what a person does, though. We all know that people who watch pornography tend to have way less conservative, and far more specific wants and needs during sex.
But, I'm not sure that a whole bunch of short term relationships will tie you only into doing that for life. A lot of people slept around until finding the right girl, just as a lot of people got out of a divorce and immediately began hitting the town. People are good at changing. It's what we do.

[Vector]

That isn't all religions, obviously.

[Tack]

Well, Scientology has holes in it already. And even Pastafarianism, renounced for it's modernism, will one way be proven wrong, when they find a particle that induces gravity, etcetera.

But if you'd like to find a text from an ancient religion that does not contain at least one contradiction/outdated theory/crude social bias, then be sure to tell me.

[Vector]

There's also... you know... Buddhism...

[Bauglir]

Actually, I recently proved reincarnation wrong, although this relies on the assumption that aluminum foil is impermeable to souls (I assume foil hats exist for exactly this reason).

>____________________________________>

[Urist Imiknorris]

I would love to hear the proof of that.

[Vector]

Actually, I recently proved reincarnation wrong, although this relies on the assumption that aluminum foil is impermeable to souls (I assume foil hats exist for exactly this reason).

>____________________________________>

. . .

<____________________________________<

[Bauglir]

I would love to hear the proof of that.

You'll have to wait for my paper to be published in Totally Legit Experimental Theology, to be published in early 2013.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Most of the actual theory behind Buddhist reincarnation doesn't have to do with "souls" - one of the basic Buddhist concepts is one of anatta, or no-soul.

Likewise, most people's idea of reincarnation is totally bunk when compared to the actual theory. Think constant changes in the idea of a "self", of which there is no actual self other than one's conception of it and this is mentally and spiritually reborn at any given moment - dies and then is renewed. Most people just think of physical death, because their concept of reality is only what they can sense. Likewise these labels and preconceptions of the self are passed on through thoughts, actions, and social norms. It's the point where this realisation of the not-self occurs that enlightenment and understanding of the nature of happiness and reality is reached.

Nirvana, or Nibbana in the Buddha's language, literally means "extinguishing of the flame" - and has to do with the metaphysics behind how the ancient Indians viewed what happened to a fire once it goes out. What could be called a flame is now gone, but the energy is still there, dispersed, all around us. Just the fuel, the agitation, the desires we have that keep the fire burning - those have been put out.

That being said, it's all phenomenology. We pay way too much attention and lip-service to external forms. Those aren't so important in the scheme of things.

[Vector]

Good man.  I can see that when I'm 35 or so I'm going to need to approach Thai, because the English translations are apparently ruddy terrible.

(It's been slated to 35 because some other languages, including Polish and Mandarin Chinese, have priority >_> <_<)

[Descan]

I'll admit that I know barely anything about Buddhism, but what I have heard just sounds a little... crazy. Then again, I'm a bit of a hardcore atheist (yes, that makes sense >:I) so, take that with a bit of salt.