Does Nature Have Laws? (mystic, experience, verse, science)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by mball1297

But, can we understand objective reality, considering everything we experience is subjective?

We subjectively experience objective reality. Which is to say that we do experience objective reality; or conversely, that the reality we experience is it.

(Where was that "it" thread? That was a good one.)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by stephenw

...unless I transcend myself (and I don't know is such a feat possible) I will not experience objective reality, only subjective reality.

You'll be glad to hear, then, that there is only the one. One reality.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Random

No. Nature is utterly lawless. Even its informal "rules" are mutable. Yet, for various nefarious reasons, Man imputes Nature with his idea of order to enforce his egoic conception of it. If Nature did have a rule that is fairly constant, it would be change. All the rest is BS: favoured races, alpha/beta males, select elites etc...

Lawlessness is utterly lawless. Law, on the other hand, is lawful. Isn't your imputing lawlessness on Nature also ego?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Random

Bold statement. Can you define one, some or all of them? BTW, saying "I let science do that" is the biggest cop-out...

Here's one: Ignorance; which is the cause of action; which is the cause of consciousness; which is the cause of name and form; which is the cause of the six senses; which the cause of contact; which is the cause of feeling; which is the cause of love or desire; which is the cause of taking; which is the cause of coming into existence; which is the cause of birth; which is the cause of aging and death; which is the cause of ignorance...

A good map, and reality, in my opinion.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Willamena

We subjectively experience objective reality. Which is to say that we do experience objective reality; or conversely, that the reality we experience is it.

(Where was that "it" thread? That was a good one.)

Yes, we do experience objective reality, but once we experience it, it becomes subjective to us. It's like being color blind, you see one color, when it's actually another. I see the computer, but it's really just a glob of atoms. My experience of it then makes it different.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Storm

Nope, just a tool.

And if I argue the tool is the territory?

Originally Posted by mball1297

Yes, we do experience objective reality, but once we experience it, it becomes subjective to us. It's like being color blind, you see one color, when it's actually another. I see the computer, but it's really just a glob of atoms. My experience of it then makes it different.

Which is why we consider inter-subjectively verifiable experiences as objective. Which does present some problems, as reality becomes a function of how we as a whole view things.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

And if I argue the toll is the territory?

I'd be interesting in hearing that argument.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by yossarian22

And if I argue the toll is the territory?

Which is why we consider inter-subjectively verifiable experiences as objective. Which does present some problems, as reality becomes a function of how we as a whole view things.

Right, but then you're just making the distinction between objective and inter-subjective realities. Those experiences still aren't the objective reality, just a collection of subjective versions of the objective reality.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Storm