• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Truth Vs. Error

precept

Member
pah said:
Who said plants do not grow toward the light. Re-read my post. Your lack of understanding biology and reader comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.


You did!

I have included your quotes with highlights for your own consumption:
* (1) Phototropism operates by the migration of plant hormones away from light. Which means that greater . growth will occur away from light.

You then waxed wiser with your plant "growing away from light" as you and the plant go around in "circles"....as you put it! "circular growth!".
...and wiser!
With the proper controled setting, I could grow a plant in a circle.

...and yet wiser with a "growing circle"!

* (2)Capilary action and the adhesive and cohesive properties of water are responsible for life sustaining activity originating in roots and leaves. This will also take place in the circle plant I just grew.

If you are afraid to debate the issues; but would rather launch a diatribe, why not instead first try to get a grip on the issues you thought you believed and knew; then launch a coherent defense. Your cause would be much better served.



precept
 

oracle

Active Member
illudtempus said:
I agree with your idea that one's perception of an objective truth in the external world is subjective and will therefore always be arrvied at through one's memory, that is, past experience, and will therefore be unique to that individual.

However, where I diverge from you is where you say that subjective experiences take precedence over objective reality: "There is no such thing as one truth because our truth is ultimately subjective." Is this not a contradiction? The "one truth," that is, the objective truth, does exist; we merely perceive it differently but it does not follow from this that the objective truth ceases to exist or that it is less important. Are you saying that subjective experience is entirely independent of objective reality? I believe so. Have a read for yourself:
Yes. For example, the waveform spectrum of light is vast, however the human eye can only percieve a small fraction of this spectrum. The frequency spectrum of sound exceeds beyond 20,000 htz, which means that there is more sound than what the human ear can hear. There is more sound that objectively exists, however it does not exist because it cannot enter into the subjective human mind because of the limitations of the human ear.

illudtempus said:
In this you are stating that any truth that is not subjective is non-existent. We could go back to that age-old question that has been asked a million times over in epistemology (and I mentioned it earlier in this thread): Does a tree make a noise when it falls in the forest even if there is no one around to hear it? You maintain that if no one heard it, it did not make a sound. That is, only mental phenomena are real and physical phenomena exist only in the sense that they are perceived. This is a naive idealism that is contrary to the workings of the world.
Everything that you percieve is a replication of an objective reality, making everything in reality subjective. When light hits the retina of your eye, this information is transduced into electricity, which causes neurons to fire, making a replication of an objective reality. When you stroke your fingers across a brick wall, you feel the roughness of it's texture, which seems objectively real to you. However, it is your nerves and the neurons in your brain that creates a replication of an objective reality, and therefore this sensory experience is ultimately a subjective experience. Something only becomes real to you when you become aware of it, by experiencing it through perception and sensation. Otherwise it does not exist. Matter must exist in order for a consciousness to exist, and a consciousness must exist in order for something to become aware of matter. In this mathematical anology, say that matter are numbers and the conscious mind an equation. In reality, your conscious mind is simply created by the complex organization of matter. It can easily be annihilated by removing portions of the brain. From an abstract way of percieving things, I see that matter and consciousness itself is just an illusion, like a waking dream (i.e. Mana). Our true existence is nothingness, infinite, eternal, imperishable, endless, perfect. It is the beginning and the end, where consciousness and neither matter exist. Before you were born, what do you remember? Nothing. Being dust, you will return to dust, and with it, your conscious mind will dissolve there.

There is more than what the eye can see. IMO It is all based on evolution. We are built according to our immediate environment, not so we can percieve everything in the vast universe, but so we can survive in our immediate environment. If the sun were a white dwarf, our eyes would have been built to see more of an infra-red spectrum due to the low emission of light. If that were so, our universe would appear different to us.`You call this naive, but your reality is only a subjective one extracted from an objective one. There is more than what the human eye can see, there is more than what the human ear can hear. What objectively exists however does not exist subjectively, does not exist subjectively because it exists outside of the subjective human mind due to the limitations of our sense organs and the limited capacity to interpret information that exceeds our immediate environment which is non essential to our survival.

illudtempus said:
Maybe I can better explain myself if I may borrow an idea from you, posted under a different thread:
I do not dispute the truth-value of your experience; you claim to be a mystic and I will accept that claim. However, the reason for me citing this statement is because with this, you contradict your two of your own views: the one above and one in a different thread (see "does satan actually exist" under Religious Debates). The best lesson I learned was: Let a man argue against himself; it'll save you a great deal of trouble.

1. If you can claim that this experience was objective -- that is, true -- then does it not contradict your previous statement that said: "All truth is therefore subjective"? So if you had to pick sides here, would you maintain that all truth is subjective and in so doing, deny all objectivity/truth of your mystical experiences, OR would you go for the other alternative? I'd recommend the latter.
Well, there is a slight difference in the word usage of objective and subjective in other statements that I have made. Objective being external reality, and subjective being solely of the human mind. There is however, more than one word usage for objective and subjective in my terminology. My statements only contradict in the way you have interpreted them.

illudtempus said:
2. This is a semi-grudge I've held against you since your last post under "does satan actually exist" where you gave an extended reductive argument from a neuroscientific point of view. You stated that "demons" can be located in the amygdala, the seat of aggression and fear, and simply discarded the claims of billions of believers that satan (and God) truly exist.
I did not state that demons were located in the amygdala, I said that there are no demons involved. I never said that God does not exist, this would be incompatible with my own beliefs. I only said that Satan does not exist, but is entirely subjective and created by superstition.

illudtempus said:
I shall quote your statement above once again to emphasize my point: "But, one of these experiences was objective, which had nothing to do with physiological functions of the brain." Does this pose another dilemma for you? How can you state, with absolute certainty, that YOUR mystical experience was objective and not based on physiology, yet reduce everyone else's beliefs to brain activity?
Because I've instantly healed people from physical disease by laying my hands on them. This is clearly objective, since it was also witnessed by other people. It was not just subjectively personal [existing only in my mind], making this different than all other experiences. All my other experiences were entirely subjective.

illudtempus said:
How would you feel if someone that claimed to be a "psychologist" rejected the validity of your experience, and said that you were deluding yourself in thinking that it was objective for it was merely, to use your words, "oversimplified, superficial, and supersititous?" Slightly unfair, if not entirely unsympathetic, wouldn't you say?
That is their subjective opinion, just as it was my subjective opinion based on objective reality.
 
Top