Gee, my head is spinning!

But...for fun...insert "God", in place of [reality] and re-read these posts! hehehehe!

(July 21, 2013 at 5:30 pm)apophenia Wrote: Why is this thread in the Christianity subforum, instead of philosophy?(I prefer to just stand around and catch the blood on my shirt, but it would appear the OP is guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept.)

I must have missed that. Which concept is she guilty of stealing?

(July 21, 2013 at 11:34 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 5:30 pm)apophenia Wrote: Why is this thread in the Christianity subforum, instead of philosophy?(I prefer to just stand around and catch the blood on my shirt, but it would appear the OP is guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept.)

I must have missed that. Which concept is she guilty of stealing?

Objective reality, or reality as a thing apart from the reality created by the mind. She's invoking it to deny it. (My mind is not fully lucid at the moment, but it leads to some deep questions in epistemology. The coherence theory of truth suggests that truth is nothing more than the coherence or consistency of a set of beliefs and/or knowledge. If I remember rightly, Russell's objection to this is that, under this construal, there can be two "systems," one of which is consistent with a proposition P, and another system that proposition P coheres with, yet the two systems are not mutually coherent. I think Russell is engaged in a bit of question begging here, in that if truth qua truth is the state of coherence, then there is no "outside" the system from which to compare inconsistent systems, unless, of course, you assume that the systems' "truth" can be judged independent of internal coherence, which is what he's trying to prove; thus begging the question. Here we have a similar situation. If all views of reality are biased or constructed or whatever, is not this view itself also a consequence of this and therefore itself relative and not a truth "about reality" as a whole? Which "not-objective-reality mind-gestalt" is privileged with knowledge about objective reality outside its gestalt?)

(July 21, 2013 at 9:02 am)wandering soul Wrote: ok in this ongoing debate there is no resolution when the terms are not defined. Even then there will be no resolution because it is being driven by emotion and survival instincts rather than informed comprehension.

First the problem must be addressed from the point of divergence which is not at the point of either reason or faith but of reality. Reality is not, as we always assume, some objective verifiable entity. It is an abstract concept created by the human mind.

Both faith and reason are just mental tools we have constructed to manipulate and create our mental worlds and our realities - yes plural - one size does not fit all. We are all constructing and experiencing different realities based on different data sets, using different mental tools and different methods of construction of reality.

I believe you are confusing paradigms with reality. Paradigms are our mental states that we use to interpret the world around us and what we have grown to understand. Reality, on the other hand, is anything that is objectively real. Rocks, your parents, and anything that you can prove exists is reality.

Yes, reason and faith are definitely mental tools, or social constructions. Everyone has their own sets of logic; some of which are better than others.

(July 21, 2013 at 9:02 am)wandering soul Wrote: Both faith and reason are just mental tools we have constructed to manipulate and create our mental worlds and our realities

And you came to this conclusion... using reason? Is it possible to know any truths, or are you a skeptic of them all?

(July 21, 2013 at 9:02 am)wandering soul Wrote: The thing is, you can't say one reality is more "real" than the other. Reality is an abstraction which we create, which corresponds to our subjective lived experience. We only trade in one reality for another when our current constructed reality starts to break down in the face of that business of raw existence itself - which can totally disrupt our mental abstract constructs at times.

Excellent! You don't understand how difficult it is to find good help.

All you have to do is stand still and trade one reality for another while I measure stone trajecory. Nevermind the impigement, keep consentrating on the mental abstract constructs. You can't 'really' complain since getting pelted with rocks is nothing more than a subjective lived experience.

(July 21, 2013 at 9:02 am)wandering soul Wrote: ok in this ongoing debate there is no resolution when the terms are not defined. Even then there will be no resolution because it is being driven by emotion and survival instincts rather than informed comprehension.

First the problem must be addressed from the point of divergence which is not at the point of either reason or faith but of reality. Reality is not, as we always assume, some objective verifiable entity. It is an abstract concept created by the human mind.

Reality for a human being would certainly be different from that for a dog or an electron. Between human beings our perception of reality would largely be common, or could be expected to be due to the commonality of the senses that interpret the world around us.

Plants, rocks, water, air, and animals do not have Reality, they have merely existence. Even animals with mind and consciousness do not experience reality but only existence. Reality did not exist until the human mind worked itself up from manipulation of mental objects (as all sentient creatures do) to construction of mental ideas and thoughts (also common in sentient creatures) and then from thoughts and ideas constructed abstractions leading to abstractions as fully formed mental objects themselves to be manipulated to construct whole worlds and universes of philosophy, science, and yes, religions.

Its difficult to argue the difference between existence and reality. You can argue the difference between existence and the perception of reality which is what I think you are doing. Note that in referring to abstractions you are actually acknowledging reality as you differentiate them.


Both faith and reason are just mental tools we have constructed to manipulate and create our mental worlds and our realities - yes plural - one size does not fit all. We are all constructing and experiencing different realities based on different data sets, using different mental tools and different methods of construction of reality.

The tools, I think, are actually common largely, across humanity. The means of implementing them varies wildly. We can all identify the colour green for example - even if we don't all see it the exact same way. Neither faith nor reason define our reality - they seek to explain it.

The thing is, you can't say one reality is more "real" than the other. Reality is an abstraction which we create, which corresponds to our subjective lived experience. We only trade in one reality for another when our current constructed reality starts to break down in the face of that business of raw existence itself - which can totally disrupt our mental abstract constructs at times.

Well patently you can say one reality is more real than another. Many people spend months in on-line virtual realities which are ultimately less real than the one that requires you to eat and drink to stay alive.

(July 22, 2013 at 5:09 am)max-greece Wrote:

(July 21, 2013 at 9:02 am)wandering soul Wrote: ok in this ongoing debate there is no resolution when the terms are not defined. Even then there will be no resolution because it is being driven by emotion and survival instincts rather than informed comprehension.

First the problem must be addressed from the point of divergence which is not at the point of either reason or faith but of reality. Reality is not, as we always assume, some objective verifiable entity. It is an abstract concept created by the human mind.

Reality for a human being would certainly be different from that for a dog or an electron. Between human beings our perception of reality would largely be common, or could be expected to be due to the commonality of the senses that interpret the world around us.

Plants, rocks, water, air, and animals do not have Reality, they have merely existence. Even animals with mind and consciousness do not experience reality but only existence. Reality did not exist until the human mind worked itself up from manipulation of mental objects (as all sentient creatures do) to construction of mental ideas and thoughts (also common in sentient creatures) and then from thoughts and ideas constructed abstractions leading to abstractions as fully formed mental objects themselves to be manipulated to construct whole worlds and universes of philosophy, science, and yes, religions.

Its difficult to argue the difference between existence and reality. You can argue the difference between existence and the perception of reality which is what I think you are doing. Note that in referring to abstractions you are actually acknowledging reality as you differentiate them.


Both faith and reason are just mental tools we have constructed to manipulate and create our mental worlds and our realities - yes plural - one size does not fit all. We are all constructing and experiencing different realities based on different data sets, using different mental tools and different methods of construction of reality.

The tools, I think, are actually common largely, across humanity. The means of implementing them varies wildly. We can all identify the colour green for example - even if we don't all see it the exact same way. Neither faith nor reason define our reality - they seek to explain it.

The thing is, you can't say one reality is more "real" than the other. Reality is an abstraction which we create, which corresponds to our subjective lived experience. We only trade in one reality for another when our current constructed reality starts to break down in the face of that business of raw existence itself - which can totally disrupt our mental abstract constructs at times.

Well patently you can say one reality is more real than another. Many people spend months in on-line virtual realities which are ultimately less real than the one that requires you to eat and drink to stay alive.

Your quotes got all criss crossed, sloth. (Is that what the creature in your avatar is supposed to be, Max?) I found your response interesting and helpful. I wonder what wondering soul will think of it.

(July 22, 2013 at 4:23 am)cato123 Wrote: All you have to do is stand still and trade one reality for another while I measure stone trajecory. Nevermind the impigement, keep consentrating on the mental abstract constructs. You can't 'really' complain since getting pelted with rocks is nothing more than a subjective lived experience.

In my reality, torturing baby birds is completely acceptable. Never mind what others think, for you can't judge me based on what I hold to be true!

(July 22, 2013 at 3:03 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(July 22, 2013 at 4:23 am)cato123 Wrote: All you have to do is stand still and trade one reality for another while I measure stone trajecory. Nevermind the impigement, keep consentrating on the mental abstract constructs. You can't 'really' complain since getting pelted with rocks is nothing more than a subjective lived experience.

In my reality, torturing baby birds is completely acceptable. Never mind what others think, for you can't judge me based on what I hold to be true!

Is that cunning lingually speaking?