God doesn't "exist as a concept" (and neither does anything else)

[Polymath257]

"Real" compared to what?

Compared to things we imagine.

For example, there is a huge difference between a bird that I imagine and one that I see with my eyes.

Only fools claim they "know God", just as only fools claim they know there isn't one, because if there were, they'd know it.

Why would you assume that?

But the world is full of fools. It's part of the human condition. We can't avoid it. But that doesn't mean we have to wallow in it, either, or defend it as some absurd form of wisdom.
Yes, they do, in fact. It's called 'faith'. And it does add another methodology to our perceptual tool belt.

Adding perceptions in this way is also known as delusion.

 

[F1fan]

"Real" compared to what?

Apparently the ones that aren't objects in your view since objects aren't really objects.

Only fools claim they "know God", just as only fools claim they know there isn't one, because if there were, they'd know it. But the world is full of fools.

See what you can do about it.

It's part of the human condition. We can't avoid it. But that doesn't mean we have to wallow in it, either, or defend it as some absurd form of wisdom.

Well it is part of how the human brain evolved.

Yes, they do, in fact. It's called 'faith'. And it does add another methodology to our perceptual tool belt.

No, I've actually asked many theists over the years if they have some special sensory ability to detect God and not a single one has said yes.

They do fall back on faith which is not a good strategy since faith is notoriously unreliable and faulty. It's an admission of belief despite a lack of evidence, which is the definition of irrational.

 

[PureX]

Math is representative. 2 means 2 of whatever the relevant application is. Or 2 can mean nothing but an abstraction without any referant. You can do an excersize with the Pythagorean theorem in some abstract way. It doesn't have to be for any practical application.

But the moment any mathematical equation is applied to physical reality, it fails. Unless we ignore the ways in which it fails, and only maintain the ways in which it doesn't. Then it can be quite useful to us. 2 sheep plus 2 sheep = 4 sheep so long as we ignore the uniqueness of any given sheep (the sheep remain abstract integers and not unique, individual animals).

Mathematics can be useful, but it's important that we remain cognizant of this innate failure that occurs whenever we apply abstract absolutes to a fundamentally relative existential reality.

Actually identical twins are a fertilized egg that splits. You didn't know this?

Sure, but they aren't identical from the instant of that split, onward.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. If anything, I think this is exactly the reverse of the correct position. Out internal experiences are fleeting and unreal, while the external world is the reality. The external world affects us through our senses, but in a weak and filtered way.

You can think this all you like, but it remains logically absurd. The exact same laws of physics (and of metaphysics) apply to our internal phenomenology as to any effecting eternal phenomenology. So to claim that the internal phenomenology is somehow 'less valid' than the external phenomenology is simply illogical. It's all of the same phenomenology.

The sun shines down on a three-dimensional tree, casting a two-dimensional shadow of the tree on the ground. Do you think the two-dimensional shadow is somehow less 'real', or less 'valid' than the sun and the tree? Yet this is what you appear to be trying to claim about the idea of a tree in the human mind. It's ridiculous.

There is reality and then there is our imagination. Our conceptions are all inaccurate to various degrees since they are based on imperfect information.

Nevertheless, the human imagination is 'real' And so is what it imagines. The difference is that it's metaphysically real as opposed to being physically real. And it's that materialist bias against metaphysics that your mind will not let go of.

 

[PureX]

I've actually asked many theists over the years if they have some special sensory ability to detect God and not a single one has said yes.

It was a semantic misunderstanding. You needn't have fussed about it all this time.

They do fall back on faith which is not a good strategy since faith is notoriously unreliable and faulty. It's an admission of belief despite a lack of evidence, which is the definition of irrational.

Faith is an excellent tool when used properly, and appropriately, as many do. But your bias against it will keep you blinded to those advantages if you keep nursing it.

 

[Polymath257]

You can think this all you like, but it remains logically absurd. The exact same laws of physics (and metaphysics) apply to our internal phenomenology as to any effecting eternal phenomenology. So to claim that the internal phenomenology is somehow 'less valid' than the external phenomenology is simply illogical. It's all of the same phenomenology.

It is quite clear that the exact same laws do NOT apply in both cases. I can, for example, easily imagine that gravity does not exist.

If you mean that the same laws apply to our *brains*, then I agree. But that is a very different thing.

And, yes, internal phenomenology is less valid that external. We know that because of the numerous contradictions and illusions given by our senses and mistakes made in our thought processes.

The sun shines down on a three-dimensional tree, casting a two-dimensional shadow of the tree on the ground. Do you think the two-dimensional shadow is somehow less 'real', or less 'valid' than the sun and the tree? Yet this is what you appear to be trying to claim about the idea of a tree in the human mind.

Yes, the shadows is less real. it is simply the relative absence of light, as opposed to something physical and separate.

And yes, I apply the same to the idea of a tree in my mind. it is not the same as the tree outside of my mind.

The human imagination is 'real' And so is what it imagines. The difference is that it's metaphysical reality as opposed to physical reality. And it's that materialist bias against metaphysics that your mind will not let go of.

Yes, I agree. Most metaphysics is pretty bad philosophy. I don't think there is anything that does not supervene on the physical.

 

[Polymath257]

It was a semantic misunderstanding. You needn't have fussed about it all this time.
Faith is an excellent tool when used properly, and appropriately, as many do. But your bias against it will keep you blinded to those advantages if you keep nursing it.

Faith is a poor substitute for reason. it is even a poor substitute for intuition, which is saying a lot.

Ultimately, the cases where (religious) faith is an 'excellent tool' are very rare and far between. I have trouble thinking of any example.

 

[PureX]

Compared to things we imagine.

For example, there is a huge difference between a bird that I imagine and one that I see with my eyes.

And yet they are both quite real. And in fact the metaphysical bird offers you far more possibilities than the physical one does.

 

[Polymath257]

And yet they are both quite real. And in fact the metaphysical bird offers you far more possibilities than the physical one does.

There is no 'metaphysical bird'. There is an imagined bird and there are real birds.

And no, the imagined bird offers far, far less than the real one. The only thing it offers is the possibility of self-delusion.

 

[PureX]

It is quite clear that the exact same laws do NOT apply in both cases. I can, for example, easily imagine that gravity does not exist.

That's because imagination can transcend the physical limitations that generate it. That's why it's defined as being 'metaphysical' as opposed to physical.

And, yes, internal phenomenology is less valid that external. We know that because of the numerous contradictions and illusions given by our senses and mistakes made in our thought processes.

That's just your bias against contradictions and mistakes (lack of control). What's really going on is the transcendence of physicality into metaphysicality. So sure, the limitations of physicality begin to break down, and falter. Making way for a whole new realm of possibilities. It's what makes imagination such an incredibly powerful tool.

Yes, the shadows is less real. it is simply the relative absence of light, as opposed to something physical and separate.

That bias is going to crush you someday.

 

[PureX]

There is no 'metaphysical bird'. There is an imagined bird and there are real birds.

Imagination is a metaphysical phenomenon.

And no, the imagined bird offers far, far less than the real one. The only thing it offers is the possibility of self-delusion.

How sad it must be to loathe imagination to such a degree, when imagination could be the doorway to a whole new experience of existence for you.

 

[Polymath257]

Imagination is a metaphysical phenomenon.

What definition of metaphysics are you using to say that? it seems very nonstandard.

metaphysical: relating to metaphysics

metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space:

How sad it must be to loathe imagination to such a degree, when imagination could be the doorway to a whole new experience of existence for you.

I don't loathe imagination. But it is not equal to reality. i prefer truth to fantasy.

 

[F1fan]

But the moment any mathematical equation is applied to physical reality, it fails. Unless we ignore the ways in which it fails, and only maintain the ways in which it doesn't.

So if you calculate the hypotenuse using the pythagorean theorem for a building project the math will fail? Or the math used to calculate the space program fails? When stress is calculated in engineering the math fails?

Give us five more decent examples of how math fails when applied to physical reality.

Then it can be quite useful to us. 2 sheep plus 2 sheep = 4 sheep so long as we ignore the uniqueness of any given sheep (the sheep remain abstract integers and not unique, individual animals).

If you're doing a head count it's irrelevant what color, shape, or size any sheep is. You are trying to complicate simple tasks for some unknown motive.

Mathematics can be useful, but it's important that we remain cognizant of this innate failure that occurs whenever we apply abstract absolutes to a fundamentally relative existential reality.

Give us an actual example of this happening.

Sure, but they aren't identical from the instant of that split, onward.

That is irrelevant to my joke. But they are identical physically.

 

[F1fan]

Imagination is a metaphysical phenomenon.

No. Imagination is physical and material process of brains. There is nothing supernatural about thinking or imagination or dreaming.

How sad it must be to loathe imagination to such a degree, when imagination could be the doorway to a whole new experience of existence for you.

Fantasy is OK so long as the person is aware it's a fantasy. When it is confused as being a real experience there is a problem.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This only gets confusing on the philosophical level as we sit safely on our couch. When driving our car the "real versus imaginary" issue is quite black and white.

You may dismiss them as idle philosophical ideas, but they are serious questions. What happens in the perceived world is not a reality, not even your existnce.

Well, I'll tell ya man, you get hit in the head with a brick you're gonna know it's an object. But try to deny the pain away if that works for you.

One does not need to deny pain. Pain also along with the brick and the person who was hit by the brick, is imagination. So, there is a perceived reality (which Hindus label as 'Vyavaharika Satya"), and an absolute reality (labeled as "Parmarthika Satya"). A person's agreement or denial does not affect the working of the universe.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a reality out there that is affecting us in these ways.

Is Purex denying the reality out there? There is one, but it does not come out in our perception till the time we understand it.

 

[F1fan]

You may dismiss them as idle philosophical ideas, but they are serious questions. What happens in the perceived world is not a reality, not even your existnce.

Yeah, I went through all that in my 30's into the 40's. It's a good intellectual exercise and I have no regrets but it's apparent the questions have no actual solutions. And after decades pondering and looking back many questions taught me that despite our ability to ask questions we need to acknowledge many have no answers. The pondering is a journey, but there's some disappointment to find many dead ends. I'm more streamlined these days. Occam's Razor.

One does not need to deny pain. Pain also along with the brick and the person who was hit by the brick, is imagination.

Well he's denying the brick. And the self's skull it hits, apparently. I'm sorry but i'll bet if he sees a brick heading his way he will duck.

So, there is a perceived reality (which Hindus label as 'Vyavaharika Satya"), and an absolute reality (labeled as "Parmarthika Satya").

This is addressed in cognitive psychology. Our senses are not perfect. Our brains are not perfect. We can't see infrared light, for example. But there is a baseline of what a typical human can sense about the environment. We can see a brick and not think twice about it. If it's a brick from George Washington's house? An American will get excited. A Russian might not think twice about it. We impose a lot of our own subconscious meaning on to things and ideas, and do so without conscious awareness.

A person's agreement or denial does not affect the working of the universe.Is Purex denying the reality out there? There is one, but it does not come out in our perception till the time we understand it.

When he says "objects aren't real objects" that is a logical contradiction. It is saying A does not equal real A.

 

[rational experiences]

Human advice stop thinking.

Your real answer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. in spite of our ability to ask questions we need to acknowledge many have no answers.

I'm sorry but i'll bet if he sees a brick heading his way he will duck.

When he says "objects aren't real objects" that is a logical contradiction. It is saying A does not equal real A.

We are half-way through to the answers of these questions. If we don't ask the questions, then we do not get the answers. It is essential to ask questions. IMHO, Buddha erred here.

True, you do in "Vyavaharika" what is necessary for "Vyavaharika", but "Paramarthika" is different. Levels of reality, I think Buddhism also talks about them. Perhaps Hinduism took it from Buddhism.

No contradiction. Like the image in a mirror, A could be different from real A.

 

[PureX]

What definition of metaphysics are you using to say that? it seems very nonstandard.

metaphysical: relating to metaphysics

metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space:

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction behind another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

I don't loathe imagination. But it is not equal to reality. i prefer truth to fantasy.

I think it's very strange that you so ardently equate imagination with fantasy, and fantasy with falsity.