That is, each of them exists as a concept or thing imagined in individual brains and in no other manner.They're literary characters. There's nothing to them but the model.
Like God.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That is, each of them exists as a concept or thing imagined in individual brains and in no other manner.They're literary characters. There's nothing to them but the model.
Are you confused about what's real?Is real real and how does it exist?
Yes, either God/Gods/Goddesses exist or they don't. There is no third option... but the whole idea of God - or anything - "existing as a concept" or "existing in the mind" is nonsense. Thoughts?
Are the 'real' objects really 'real'? 'Your life depends on it'. Is our life the reality? What exists is just a blob of atoms, there as well as here, the truck as well as the car. How much real are we?My guess is you have no problem discerning real objects in your environment if your life depends on it, assuming you exist.
This isn't an accurate example. Human rights are not objects, they are abstractions.Yes, just as the imagery idea of human rights. Now draw human rights.
I suspect this touches on something i see many theists do when we discuss perception and the imaginary. Theists tend to be in favor of being in a more confused state, trying to blur the distinction between the real and the imaginary. My suspicion is this creates a vacuum for God to exist. The "you can't know it's not there" the of thinking.But the fact that our brains filter and process the information doesn't mean there is no table there.
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.Yes, either God/Gods/Goddesses exist or they don't. There is no third option.Are the 'real' objects really 'real'? 'Your life depends on it'. Is our life the reality? What exists is just a blob of atoms, there as well as here, the truck as well as the car. How much real are we?
No, it's all one big, complicated, inter-related phenomenon. The phenomenon of existence. The differentiation comes from us. We are deciding "this" from "that", "here" from "there", "truth" from "fiction", by how the phenomenon of existence is effecting US. Perception IS imagination. Reality is an imagined state within which we create a context for whatever we experience.I disagree. There are differentiated phenomena.
"Internal" and "external" are imaginary conditions based on our own particular experience of existence. But "the world" is all of it. It's the phenomenon of existence AND it's our perception of and subsequent presumed understanding of that phenomenon.We don't have access to all of the information about the external world, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
What is imaginary is "energy" and "matter". What is not imaginary is the phenomenon of existence, and it's effect on us. We define the phenomenon of existence according to that effect. And then we presume our definitions to be the "reality" of what exists.That is an exceptionally inaccurate statement.
Energy/matter is not imaginary.
You don't understand; to perceive is to imagine a context within which to 'place' the various stimuli our minds are receiving. Imagination is how we think; it's how we 'understand' (or presume to understand) what we experience. There is no "un-imagined" reality, for us. It's all imagined.Now you may be confusing how our minds sense the rest of the universe, and that perception is processed in our minds as representations. This doesn't mean what we sense is imaginary.
The term "knowledge" refers to personal experience. It does not refer to the 'truth of what is'. So yes, we experience things, and we imagine a whole contextual array within which to place our new experience. We can label it, and repeat it, until we no longer doubt it's validity as an independent experience of being. ... We "know" it, now. And yet the exprience remains what it always was: undifferentiated phenomena until we came along and imagined it to be a "separate" (differentiated) phenomena of it's own. And we labeled it, and placed it in our conceptual multiplex of 'existence' until something happens to cause us to have to re-contextualize the experience.We know what tomatoes are from experience, but when we pick a tomato from our garden, slice it, and eat it, we aren't relating to a concept of a tomato, we are having an experience with a real tomato that isn't subject to our imagination.
All experiences are being imagined as we experience them. It's what 'perception' is: our contextualizing that incoming sensory information. Once 'logged' and contextualized, we can then recall that process later as a 'memory', and replay it using that our imagination. Imagination is our primary cognitive tool. We can do a lot with it.Now we can imagine eating one of our tomatoes before they are ready and ripe. That is an imaginary experience.
We become so dependent upon that contextual array in our minds that we call "reality" that when some experience occurs that isn't immediately able to be comfortably contextualized, labeled, and thereby 'understood', we often become frightened, and confused, and respond irrationally.What can be confusing is if our brains have distorted perception, like being tired or low blood sugar and how this affects brain functioning. When our brains are out of whack we can believe we sense things that aren't real. Even heightened states of fear can distort what we think is happening around us. Look into the God Helmet experiments as it shows that the brain can have an imbalance and subjects believe they are having a spiritual experience. Our brains have a lot of flaws and to keep perception accurate requires a good deal of learning and understanding.
Yes, it's a lot like mathematics. 2 + 2 = 4 so long as we continue to ignore all the ways that these two 'things' and those two 'things' are not actually equal (when the numbers are applied to reality]. And that, in fact, no two things are ever really equal, or they would have to be the same thing. Which makes them one thing, and not two.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.
True, but objects aren't really objects, either. We simply perceive them to be objects because of our relationship to their material density.This isn't an accurate example. Human rights are not objects, they are abstractions.
Math isn't concerned with what the things are. It could be two piles of **** and two kittens, regardless there are four objects on the floor. You are trying to make things murky by inserting value into it.Yes, it's a lot like mathematics. 2 + 2 = 4 so long as we continue to ignore all the ways that these two 'things' and those two 'things' are not actually equal (when the numbers are applied to reality].
Completely irrelevant.And that, in fact, no two things are ever really equal, or they would have to be the same thing. Which makes them one thing, and not two.
Like do you believe in one imaginary God or three, because that Trinity thing is very confusing.It's why philosophy is so important. Without it, we'd just go on believing in the "truth" of our own ideological fictions.
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.True, but objects aren't really objects, either.
So you acknowledge they are material and dense, but also that they are not objects?We simply perceive them to be objects because of our relationship to their material density.
I didn't come up with this challenge, but I really like it:
Draw a bicycle.
Pretty much everyone has a concept of a bicycle... so draw it in as much detail as you can manage. Draw either a specific bike that you have in mind or a "generalized" bike that you dreamed up yourself.
Whenever you decide you're done, hit the spoiler button below.
All right. Now that you're done, look at it critically and ask yourself a few questions:
- would this bike actually function? Would the wheels turn? Would the pedals propel you? Would the brakes work? Would the gears shift properly?
- (if it was a depiction of a real bike): does this drawing look like the real bike? Are there any differences between the real thing and your drawing? Did you get the scratch on the fork or the scuff on the crank correct?
When asking yourself these questions, feel free to make reasonable allowances for your drawing ability (or lack thereof), but please be honest with yourself and don't pretend that you were conceiving of details that you really didn't.
We think in mental models. These models are not the entirety of the things they represent; they're only the details we think are important... and even then, only the details we recognize.
Just as your mental model of a bike isn't actually a bike "existing in your mind," your mental model of God isn't actually God existing in your mind, either. It's an action figure version of God. A Potemkin Village God.
The idea of God "existing as a concept" is a foundational part of the Ontological Argument. It also gets used occasionally for snark thrown at atheists ("what do you mean God doesn't exist? *I* believe in God, so God at least exists as a concept"... that sort of thing).
... but the whole idea of God - or anything - "existing as a concept" or "existing in the mind" is nonsense.
Thoughts?
Are cars not really cars? Are birds not really birds?True, but objects aren't really objects, either. We simply perceive them to be objects because of our relationship to their material density.
Mathematics without any applied value is just ideological fiction. "Zippo" + "wambo" = "majento". ... Yep! Absolutely! (And absolutely meaningless.)Math isn't concerned with what the things are. It could be two piles of **** and two kittens, regardless there are four objects on the floor. You are trying to make things murky by inserting value into it.
There are no identical twins. It's a misuse of terminology.But I do make a joke about identical twins, when someone asks me if I'm dating anyone I ask them "Does dating identical twins count as one?"
If you'd stop auto-defending your own nonsense for a minute you'd become less confused. I don't 'believe in' any gods. I don't 'believe in' anything. As a mere human, I don't find that sort of blind self-justification helpful.Like do you believe in one imaginary God or three, because that Trinity thing is very confusing.
No, it's all one big, complicated, inter-related phenomenon. The phenomenon of existence. The differentiation comes from us. We are deciding "this" from "that", "here" from "there", "truth" from "fiction", by how the phenomenon of existence is effecting US. Perception IS imagination. Reality is an imagined state within which we create a context for whatever we experience.
"Internal" and "external" are imaginary conditions based on our own particular experience of existence. But "the world" is all of it. It's the phenomenon of existence AND it's our perception of and subsequent presumed understanding of that phenomenon.
I am honestly puzzled by how difficult this is for a philosophical materialist to grasp.
The words are representative of real phenomenon. These specific words are English. There are other languages that mean the same thing. these are more accurately called abstractions.What is imaginary is "energy" and "matter". What is not imaginary is the phenomenon of existence, and it's effect on us.
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.Mathematics without any applied value is just ideological fiction. "Zippo" + "wambo" = "majento". ... Yep! Absolutely! (And absolutely meaningless.)
Actually identical twins are a fertilized egg that splits. You didn't know this?There are no identical twins. It's a misuse of terminology.
Irony.If you'd stop auto-defending your own nonsense for a minute you'd become less confused. I don't 'believe in' any gods. I don't 'believe in' anything. As a mere human, I don't find that sort of blind self-justification helpful.
"Real" compared to what?Are cars not really cars? Are birds not really birds?
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. 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.Your statement here is exactly what I referred to earlier. There's this deliberate attempt to murky how we humans perceive and understand by many theists. The irony is that if our perception is this faulty and poor then that just makes claims of "knowing" a God exists even LESS likely.
Yes, they do, in fact. It's called 'faith'. And it does add another methodology to our perceptual tool belt.The smart thing would be to advocate for excellent perception, and theists have a special extra sensory ability to detect a God that atheists lack.
What is imaginary is "energy" and "matter". What is not imaginary is the phenomenon of existence, and it's effect on us. We define the phenomenon of existence according to that effect. And then we presume our definitions to be the "reality" of what exists.
You don't understand; to perceive is to imagine a context within which to 'place' the various stimuli our minds are receiving. Imagination is how we think; it's how we 'understand' (or presume to understand) what we experience. There is no "un-imagined" reality, for us. It's all imagined.
The term "knowledge" refers to personal experience. It does not refer to the 'truth of what is'. So yes, we experience things, and we imagine a whole contextual array within which to place our new experience. We can label it, and repeat it, until we no longer doubt it's validity as an independent experience of being. ... We "know" it, now. And yet the exprience remains what it always was: undifferentiated phenomena until we came along and imagined it to be a "separate" (differentiated) phenomena of it's own. And we labeled it, and placed it in our conceptual multiplex of 'existence' until something happens to cause us to have to re-contextualize the experience.
All experiences are being imagined as we experience them. It's what 'perception' is: our contextualizing that incoming sensory information. Once 'logged' and contextualized, we can then recall that process later as a 'memory', and replay it using that our imagination. Imagination is our primary cognitive tool. We can do a lot with it.
We become so dependent upon that contextual array in our minds that we call "reality" that when some experience occurs that isn't immediately able to be comfortably contextualized, labeled, and thereby 'understood', we often become frightened, and confused, and respond irrationally.