But how do we even know we exist in the first place? If we don't exist, then there is no objective material reality! See? We can't rely on or accept anything, because we can't prove that we're not merely figments of our own imagination.
<vanishes into a black hole of his own making>
No it is what opinion is based on, the assumption that what you call an objective material reality is an objective material reality. Reality is what you and others have agreed to collude on as the real. The collusion in our time is often called science. The trick with science is that it attempts to draw all minds into the mix to find the most bullet proof collusion.
Your games of semantics have never interested me. Thats why this is my first reply to you. However, i do find it interesting that you included a definition of credence that was not explicitly there.
I have NEVER, i repeat NEVER heard/seen the phrase you made up uttered by a true scientist (ie, validity != credence). Nor have i ever seen/heard a scientist use "belief" without phrasing it in context. Even then its usually in the third person directly related to knowledge. Without it, its like saying, "I dont believe your data." Well, on what grounds? "None, i just dont believe it." This is where PsychoWizard sits. But, to be honest, i really dont know what youre getting at and i never even bother with reading your posts so i dont know your "personality" well.Yes, I meant to insert 'collective' in that quote but for some reason didn't. But, still, your "I am above reality and therefore am above you" philosophy is, as ever, nihilistic and meaningless. "You and others", huh? Don't want to include yourself in with the rest of the the riff-raff? Take your condescension elsewhere.
Let me post again my only comment on the OP:
"These facts have been understood for thousands of years by men and women of wisdom. There is an existential truth that mystics, or the practitioners of the science of inner states, real psychologists, or whatever words you want to use, Knowers, would be as good as any, have always understood. It is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink, you can't put an old head on young shoulders, or that a fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
People, generally speaking, have no idea just how deeply their thinking is embedded in dualism. In reality, thought IS dualism. Our thought arose with the evolution of language, the ability to name and thus separate one aspect of reality from another. All of the animal world if free from mental suffering because animals cannot think. They and the universe are as one.
This state of unity, of cosmic oneness, of perfection of being, is obtained by the very few who know how to allow thought to die so that ones true state of oneness can reveal its eternal reality.
With the evolution of language came the birth of good and evil, the notion that there are such things, and the realization that they could be used for control. The natural love needs of a child can be subverted by demands that the child conform to certain behaviors that are not natural to a perfect state.
You were made to hate who you really are so that you could survive as a false ego. You would have physically died had you not suppressed your real self and done what was demanded. And all of this happened very early and is now completely suppressed.
And the truth of this can no longer reach you just as the article says.
This article applies not to the other guy but to you and me."
Note the bolded line for the condescension. Your reaction to me is a perfect example of of the point the authors were making, the influence repressed memory has on our perceptions. You feel like the worst person in the world and do not know that you do. You project that feeling out here in the world and it lands on me. Your feeling of worthlessness makes you feel I look down on you. You see what you feel and won't acknowledge as if it were coming from me. These simple psychological truths you neither understand or admit when they directly apply to you. I use "YOU" because the information I have to say is good only for YOU. Knowledge of YOUR blindness is of use only to YOU. My blindness or lack thereof is irrelevant to YOU. My job is to do what I can about myself, but your job is to deal with you. What I did was tell you that. What you did was call vital information, vital for you, condescension. Hehe.
Originally posted by: homercles337
Your games of semantics have never interested me. Thats why this is my first reply to you. However, i do find it interesting that you included a definition of credence that was not explicitly there.
Perhaps you would be so good as to clarify what you are talking about. The way I read your post you seem to be saying I made up something about the definition of credence that you have never heard. What phrase are you claiming I made up? I took the words about credence I posted directly from the page where belief was defined. I even said it was a quote.
And of course I recognize your dismissal of me and my semantics for that they were, an expression of contempt for yourself transfered over to me because I make you aware of what you hide from yourself. Hehe, I have known so many old dogs I recognize all their tricks.
Moonbeam is the guy in philosophy class that no one listens to. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find he was a solipsist.
Quoting and commenting on the point of the article:
"Resistance to certain scientific ideas derives in large part from assumptions and biases that can be demonstrated experimentally in young children and that may persist into adulthood."
M: The resistance to certain scientific ideas is a subset of a larger phenomenon, the resistance to real existential truth, the facts about our real psychological condition and it is this fact which makes it impossible for you to listen to me. I have maintained the facts presented in the OP from the first day I posted here because I have known them long before their recent formulation by these scientific gentlemen. They have been known for thousands of years and account for the fact that real knowledge is always transmitted privately and person to receptive, perceptive person rather than to fools in general because the truth is something that is always dismissed because of its apparent unlikelihood. We see this fact approximated here:
"In particular, both adults and children resist acquiring scientific information that clashes with common-sense intuitions about the physical and psychological domains."
M: Again substitute truth generally for scientific information. And further in your reaction to me:
"Additionally, when learning information from other people, both adults and children are sensitive to the trustworthiness of the source of that information. Resistance to science, then, is particularly exaggerated in societies where nonscientific ideologies have the advantages of being both grounded in common sense and transmitted by trustworthy sources."
You, of course, like all the rest of the basically ignorant nonscientific people described just above, actually fancy yourself to be at the pinnacle of cultural evolution and sophistication. For you the notion that it is you who in fact are steeped from your first days in a dark culture of psychological ignorance is impossible to continence because you and all the other fools that surround you harbor the emotionally necessary egotistical fantasy that you are the owners of real understanding. You are the author of what for you is common sense and trustworthy sources.
You do not realize that hundreds of the worlds great myths, the seeker of the grail, the journey of Orpheus to the Underworld, Dante's inferno, etc etc etc all reference a journey against great odds and and in apposition to convention, a journey only fools take. He who points to real truth in the land of fools is called the fool. Hehe. It is I who have, in fact squeezed you by your own solipsistic balls and provoked your ire.
You may not like it, but the path to truth leads to not to solipsism, but to a state of abject humility and self death. It is a threat to everything your ego stands for. To feel what one feels, what one really feels all the way to the bottom releases one from self hate. To feel it all is to be free from negative feeling. The scientific journey through the inner world is the last unexplored frontier in science.
Pity the poor scientist who thinks he's reached the top only to discover another world where he has to start all over again.
You cannot humiliate the humble.
A world that hates itself demands that you hate yourself too.
Shoot the messenger. Hehe.
WTF.... Micheal Savage is that you??? Why does every one of your posts thread hijack to discuss homosexuality?
If you could rob him of his hatred for the homosexual, which I assure you, you cannot do, he would be left with the realization that his hate is still there and can have as it real source and origin only his hate for himself. He is perfectly described by the article but it is useless to him because he does not see himself and how perfectly he is described. The truth, for him, is completely useless. His pride in his ignorance freezes him there.
I hope they don't believe that because its not the area of a circle. The area is pi*r*r. You have to watch who you trust to give you information.
Correct. But that is irrelevant for this discussion. The scientific method does not tell us (and does not claim to tell us) what is "true" in a philosophical sense. Science is essentially a set up "rules" and there is stricly speaking no reason why a good scientific theory needs to have anything to do with some "ultimate reality", what matters is if it agress with experiments or not.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter