A Recent Axiomatic Observation ...

[Koldo]

Well, they don't in some cases.

They who?

They in effect claim that objectivity is better than subjectivity. But that better is subjective.

Better in what sense?

Or they do, in that only that independent of the mind is real, but that claim is only real in the mind, i.e. subjective.

That's known as realism.

 

[PureX]

But who says subjectivity doesn't exist?

The materialists. ... Not that "it doesn't exist". But rather that it doesn't "really" exist. Because to the materialist, reality is defined by it's physicality. Not by how we perceive it. This is the mighty mythos of OBJECTIVISM. And you can deny it all you want, but to a man, every "scientism" enthusiast I encounter reveres this idea of "objective reality" as being the definer of all "real" reality and truth. And they disdain the idea that our subjective perceptions should somehow be allowed to taint the purity of that "objective truth".

The real generator of all this 'scientism' business is people elevating the mythical ideal of "objective reality" to the level of pure truth. And they cannot comprehend else-wise. These are the 'materialists', or whatever term you want to label them. And they are the folks that are falling into the cult of 'scientism'. (And I use the word "cult" because of it being one of those self-blinding ideologies described at the top of the thread.)

 

[Koldo]

Yes, well, they do seem to be part-n-parcel.

People want authoritative sources that will answer all of their questions. People are people after all. The reason why you won't generally see a theist subscribing to scientism is because they generally have holy scriptures as authoritative sources of knowledge, which are not compatible with scientism.

 

[Koldo]

The materialists. ... Not that "it doesn't exist". But rather that it doesn't "really" exist. Because to the materialist, reality is defined by it's physicality. Not by how we perceive it. This is the mighty mythos of OBJECTIVISM. And you can deny it all you want, but to a man, every "scientism" enthusiast I encounter reveres this idea of "objective reality" as being the definer of all "real" reality and truth. And they disdain the idea that our subjective perceptions should somehow be allowed to taint the purity of that "objective truth".

The real generator of all this 'scientism' business is people elevating the mythical ideal of "objective reality" to the level of pure truth. And they cannot comprehend else-wise. These are the 'materialists'. Or whatever term you want to call them. And they are the folks that are falling into the cult of 'scientism'. (And I use the word "cult" because of it being one of those self-blinding ideologies.)

What you are describing as a materialist is not necessarily a materialist, it is just an ordinary person. That's how the average Joe thinks.

 

[PureX]

What you are describing as a materialist is not necessarily a materialist, it is just an ordinary person. That's how the average Joe thinks.

No, it really isn't. You just exemplified the point of this thread. Most humans are not materialists (by whatever label). That's why most humans are theists. And why they don't respond to the atheist's arguments against the existence of God. It's not that they understand consciously that perception is conception, and therefor reality is an idea. It's that they did not get sidetracked by this obsession with the idea of "objective reality/truth". So they just live as they are.

 

[Koldo]

No, it really isn't. You just exemplified the point of this thread. Most humans are not materialists (by whatever label). That's why most humans are theists. And why they don't respond to the atheist's arguments against the existence of God. It's not that they understand consciously that perception is conception, and therefor reality is an idea.

It is not merely that they don't understand that. That's simply not their view. Period.

Most humans are theists because they believe in the supernatural, but they are still (philosophical) realists.

It's that they did not get sidetracked by this obsession with the idea of "objective reality/truth". So they just live as they are.

What obsession exactly? Can you exemplify?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

That's known as realism.

Yeah, that is philosophy and not science.

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, that is philosophy and not science.

Yup.

 

[PureX]

It is not merely that they don't understand that. That's simply not their view. Period.

Most humans are theists because they believe in the supernatural, but they are still (philosophical) realists.

What obsession exactly? Can you exemplify?

They believe in the supernatural because they recognize and understand the possibility of it. And they prefer to trust in that possibility. Something the materialist does not recognize. Not really. And therefor cannot do. It's also why atheist's (materialist) arguments are of no consequence to most theists. They already recognize that reality is not defined by physicality.

How conscious they are of this depends on the individual, though.

 

[cladking]

I was an active artist in Chicago for many years. And at some point my artist friends and I began to notice that the scientists from Fermilab were showing up at the various art opening and talks around town. And being a curious lot we began to seek them out and chat with them. And we found them to be excellent art enthusiasts; very intelligent and interesting to talk with. And very curious and appreciative of art and of the art endeavor. And they were not at all stuck in some sort of 'big science' mode of thinking at all.

As someone that had not had a lot of contact with the science community before then, I was somewhat surprised by this. But after meeting these folks and thinking on it a bit, I could completely understand why they were not as I has foolishly presumed they might be. I mean, of course they would be curious, intelligent, and interested in any endeavor that sought to explore and even disrupt human perception, as art so often does. In many ways they were working to do the same thing. Just in a different 'medium'.

There are types of scientists and some are much less mystical than others. "All" of them are sharp and aware but just like everyone else they must format their knowledge as models and beliefs and then perceive reality in these terms. By knowing that they do this many of the negative effects are mitigated. While we each know everything it is through reflection or through the understanding of metaphysics that we come to understand all knowledge is provisional and ephemeral. I'm not surprised by the behavior of the Fermilab workers. I'd expect the same thing at NASA in Houston and the physics departments in most universities.

It's very difficult to see or affect your own mysticism. It starts as you acquire language and then you construct all your thinking around it. It is simply impossible to format any logic using language or to conceptualize it in the mind by any means. We do understand our thinking so we can often closely approach logic but will never achieve it. The real problem comes when we try to communicate this logic; every word must be parsed by every listener and each will parse them differently. Some parsings will be wholly illogical and none can possibly be "better" than the original (obviously some can be more logical).

This is a very severe problem for the human race and for human science with every individual having a different understanding and no means to communicate. It is especially problematical if I am right, based on my understanding of ancient consciousness, that reality is logic manifest and we are logic incarnate as math is logic quantified. Because of the way we each have to think we are mystical and we see reality in terms of our beliefs. The set of beliefs that underlie science at any given time is simply called a "paradigm"; ie- millions of believers all share a single belief, a single paradigm which can only change one funeral at a time. Generally each of these believers is unaware how he came to the belief, that metaphysics underlies them, and that in less than a century every one of his beliefs will fall by the wayside. It has always been this way. Paradigms come and go as fast as generations. We simply learn that old p[aradigms are wrong so we replace them with an entirely new one and each believer knows that at long last we really do know everything (homo omnisciencis) .

There are an infinite number of ways to arrive at truth. Every single one of them requires logic and reflection but only our science requires experiment. There may well be an infinite number of sciences as well and these too will each work on logic. But those who can't recognize the simple truism that all truth is provisional won't recognize it when it bites him on the nose.

 

[PureX]

People want authoritative sources that will answer all of their questions. People are people after all. The reason why you won't generally see a theist subscribing to scientism is because they generally have holy scriptures as authoritative sources of knowledge, which are not compatible with scientism.

I agree with this observation. People do want to imagine that they have an accurate source of truth. And some make that source science, while others make it 'God'. And these are the folks that lean toward proselytizing and bullying. I think because they fear any inference that their imagined source of truth might not be as they imagine.

 

[PureX]

There are types of scientists and some are much less mystical than others. "All" of them are sharp and aware but just like everyone else they must format their knowledge as models and beliefs and then perceive reality in these terms. By knowing that they do this many of the negative effects are mitigated. While we each know everything it is through reflection or through the understanding of metaphysics that we come to understand all knowledge is provisional and ephemeral. I'm not surprised by the behavior of the Fermilab workers. I'd expect the same thing at NASA in Houston and the physics departments in most universities.

It's very difficult to see or affect your own mysticism. It starts as you acquire language and then you construct all your thinking around it. It is simply impossible to format any logic using language or to conceptualize it in the mind by any means. We do understand our thinking so we can often closely approach logic but will never achieve it. The real problem comes when we try to communicate this logic; every word must be parsed by every listener and each will parse them differently. Some parsings will be wholly illogical and none can possibly be "better" than the original (obviously some can be more logical).

This is a very severe problem for the human race and for human science with every individual having a different understanding and no means to communicate. It is especially problematical if I am right, based on my understanding of ancient consciousness, that reality is logic manifest and we are logic incarnate as math is logic quantified. Because of the way we each have to think we are mystical and we see reality in terms of our beliefs. The set of beliefs that underlie science at any given time is simply called a "paradigm"; ie- millions of believers all share a single belief, a single paradigm which can only change one funeral at a time. Generally each of these believers is unaware how he came to the belief, that metaphysics underlies them, and that in less than a century every one of his beliefs will fall by the wayside. It has always been this way. Paradigms come and go as fast as generations. We simply learn that old p[aradigms are wrong so we replace them with an entirely new one and each believer knows that at long last we really do know everything (homo omnisciencis) .

There are an infinite number of ways to arrive at truth. Every single one of them requires logic and reflection but only our science requires experiment. There may well be an infinite number of sciences as well and these too will each work on logic. But those who can't recognize the simple truism that all truth is provisional won't recognize it when it bites him on the nose.

... and an infinite number of truths to arrive at.

 

[cladking]

The older I've gotten the more I've come to realize that my holding a "belief" is just a conceit.

Perhaps this is normal for truth seekers?

I've sought over the years to winnow down my beliefs to a core. I believe reality exists as it appears, time is immutable and eternal, we see only what we believe, and everybody makes sense in terms of his premises.

I've had these beliefs far too long to give up on any of them. I probably have too little time left to reorganize my mind without them so I'll probably die with them. When I was very young I reorganized by mind on a whim and virtually in an instant and it occurred frequently. As a child it required some effort and as an adolescent it became difficult. Only small parts of it have changed since.

Beliefs are conceits but with no beliefs homo omniscience can't function at all collectively or individually.

I tell little people to be careful what they choose to believe because they will become their beliefs.

 

[cladking]

... and an infinite number of truths to arrive at.

Indeed!!!

And every truth can be expressed in an infinite number of ways.

 

[cladking]

I agree with this observation. People do want to imagine that they have an accurate source of truth. And some make that source science, while others make it 'God'. And these are the folks that lean toward proselytizing and bullying. I think because they fear any inference that their imagined source of truth might not be as they imagine.

...And they live in fear of being converted themselves.

 

[PureX]

Indeed!!!

And every truth can be expressed in an infinite number of ways.

Hence ... art.

 

[Koldo]

They believe in the supernatural because they recognize and understand the possibility of it. And they prefer to trust in that possibility. Something the materialist does not recognize. Not really. And therefor cannot do. It's also why atheist's (materialist) arguments are of no consequence to most theists. They already recognize that reality is not defined by physicality.

How conscious they are of this depends on the individual, though.

1) You are extending your personal experiences into others. The average theist experience is not about recognizing the possibility of the supernatural and trusting in that possibility. That's your theism experience. That's your narrative. A lot of theists are absolutely certain that the supernatural exists, it is NOT a mere possibility they are trusting.

2) A LOT of atheists and physicalists recognize that God might exist. Neither of those positions entail being closed minded about possibilities. They merely entail that God is not part of their worldview.

3) Atheists' arguments are of no consequence to theists because atheists' arguments concerning the supernatural is mostly about being skeptical, and skepticism is not for everyone. Not to mention those whose mental well-being relies on believing that God exists. You will easily find people online saying they would commit crimes if not for their God beliefs.

4) Recognizing that the supernatural exists alongside the physicality has absolutely nothing to do with "perception is conception, and therefor reality is an idea".

 

[cladking]

1) You are extending your personal experiences into others. The average theist experience is not about recognizing the possibility of the supernatural and trusting in that possibility. That's your theism experience. That's your narrative. A lot of theists are absolutely certain that the supernatural exists, it is NOT a mere possibility they are trusting.

Where you are correct that each individual has a unique experience this tends to be far less pronounced among the devout and believers in science are the most devout individuals who have ever existed on this planet. They can be almost replicants and they read from the same playbook (a 4th grade science text).

How much individual difference do you see in rabbits or half inch 5" long hex bolts?

I'd wager there's less difference in beliefs of a random group of scientismists than almost any group from any religion. Even real scientists believe in the "laws of nature" which is itself somewhat mystical as most individuals define it.

 

[PureX]

1) You are extending your personal experiences into others. The average theist experience is not about recognizing the possibility of the supernatural and trusting in that possibility. That's your theism experience. That's your narrative. A lot of theists are absolutely certain that the supernatural exists, it is NOT a mere possibility they are trusting.

Almost none. In fact, only the 'crazy' ones. Some religions like to push on this idea that doubt is sin, or whatever. But I can honestly tell you that nearly every theist doubts. A lot. Because they are aware that 'God' is a cognitive possibility, not a physical fact. Over time, and with practice, they may get better at ignoring their doubts, and thanks to religion they may learn never to speak of it, but that doesn't alter my point, any. They have doubts. And they are choosing to trust in the possibility that their idea of God is true, regardless.

2) A LOT of atheists and physicalists recognize that God might exist. Neither of those positions entail being closed minded about possibilities. They merely entail that God is not part of their worldview.

So they say when directly confronted. But when you engage in discussion with them, you very quickly discover that they do not believe any gods exist, because according to their materialist way of thinking, there is no objective physical evidence of any gods. And, of course, what does and does not exist, by their reckoning, is defined by "objective physical reality". So although they claim they understand that God is possible. Nothing in their philosophy will actually allow for that possibility.

3) Atheists' arguments are of no consequence to theists because atheists' arguments concerning the supernatural is mostly about being skeptical, and skepticism is not for everyone.

Everyone is skeptical. And everyone is faithful. All that changes are the criteria and the objectives.

4) Recognizing that the supernatural exists alongside the physicality has absolutely nothing to do with "perception is conception, and therefor reality is an idea".

The former is an example of the latter. Awareness is not required.

 

[cladking]

The reason I think this is an important observation is because I suspect this kind of conceptual 'blind spot' exists within a lot of the reality/truth paradigms that we humans hold onto. Not the least of which would include a lot of theological paradigms. (Not to mention our economic and political paradigms.) Which is important to consider. Are the various truth paradigms that we hold to really as true as we think they are? Or are they just one of these self-blinding biases that we get ourselves trapped in, because we can't see past them?

I believe it not only exists but defines our species (homo omnisciencis).

Almost all of reality is a blind spot to each individual but we each see what we believe to the virtual exclusion of everything else. The only time to be sure you are seeing reality is when seeing an anomaly. And even here it might be misperception, misunderstanding, or some sort of optical illusion and we're still seeing what we believe.

Reality is infinitely complex and our species can't see any of it so we project our beliefs and color in the world in these terms. Other forms of consciousness on this planet are virtually blind because they see only what they know. An eagle knows what a mouse looks like and what it's good for from a great altitude. It can't really see it at all but it knows how it moves and where it's going. If we had to eat mice we could probably see it from so far away also.

We each live in our own little world where everything makes perfect sense. We don't notice nobody speaks our language because we parse their words to reflect what we believe and don't listen carefully. It never occurs to us that we can't all be right because at their heart so many beliefs are polar opposites of those of other people. Those individuals who believe in the infallibility of Peers and Evidence share many beliefs additionally to these because they model the prevailing paradigms. And never notice they even have models or believe paradigms. They don't notice that each individual has his own unique models because communication is so poor they can't identify the differences. You can these see these differences in how they apply and misapply mathematics and in their variable predictions.

Great thread! Everyone should take it to heart.