Are We Living In God's "Matrix"?

[dissily mordentroge]

According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”.

How can you determine there's no evidence these mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually is when accetance of such assertions you can have no grasp of what 'is' in the first place?
To know your perceptions aren't reflecting something truthfully you have to know already what that 'something' is anyway.
Word salad posing as philosophy.

[fr0d0]

"Carpet bombing" lol

[bennyboy]

According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”.

How can you determine there's no evidence these mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually is when accetance of such assertions you can have no grasp of what 'is' in the first place?
To know your perceptions aren't reflecting something truthfully you have to know already what that 'something' is anyway.
Word salad posing as philosophy.

We know for a 100% fact that our senses don't represent reality truthfully. That's what illusions demonstrate, and the effect is so strong that you cannot consciously compensate for it.

We do we really, REALLY know? That we have experiences, and that there are commonalities among them that allow us to see meaning
in repeated patterns.

[dissily mordentroge]

We know for a 100% fact that our senses don't represent reality truthfully. That's what illusions demonstrate, and the effect is so strong that you cannot consciously compensate for it.
We do we really, REALLY know? That we have experiences, and that there are commonalities among them that allow us to see meaning
in repeated patterns.

If our species was operating on a purely sensory mode what you assert would be 100% true. However, we have since The Enlightenment had the use of empirical science to validate or invalidate sensory impressions.
Or, as as one of the few sensible things Ayn Rand said. 'If you get the way you classify concepts wrong it won't just be a in interesting philosopical game you're playing, it could kill you"

[Anomalocaris]

Except our senses are the only means by which we can assess the validity and results of the empirical tests.

Empiricism can greatly reduce the probability that we are being trivially deceived by our senses and our wishes. But it can not completely eliminate the possibility that we are in some way profoundly deceived by our senses.

[Chas]

I think it's easy to misconstrue the hatred, scorn and assorted mockery heaped onto proponents of ID as 100% denial. The former is certainly the overwhelming view here on AF. But then they would also spin on a pin if you called them on their disbelief in God if it suited their cause. Atheism has a mono definition when required that is as much a get out of jail free card as taking the fifth.

Bygones

You still seem to not understand that it's about evidence.

Lots of evidence for evolution, none for ID.

And, yes, I heap scorn on those who ignore evidence.

---

Finally, your assumption that ID means "god" implies that you do not acknowledge any other opinions with regard to that concept. Some people may say there are other lifeforms on other planets that could be responsible for our reality. If I had to identify leanings personally, I would identify as a neutral monist, meaning I think that consciousness and matter are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, wherefore it would be my own consciousness (and yours) that would be the intelligence that designed and influences the universe. Do you consider this a religious perspective? If so, did I ever once push it as an agenda? Um... No.

Is it religious? Doesn't matter - it is not rational.

[sswhateverlove]

According to public opinion, these receptors tell us the truth about what “is”. Unfortunately (brace yourself), there is no evidence that the mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually “is”.

How can you determine there's no evidence these mechanisms convey to us anything that resembles what actually is when accetance of such assertions you can have no grasp of what 'is' in the first place?
To know your perceptions aren't reflecting something truthfully you have to know already what that 'something' is anyway.
Word salad posing as philosophy.

Things are taken as "givens" to enable us to move on to other ideas. The claim that vibrating waves and particles are received by receptors and interpreted as an experience does nothing to confirm the perceived experience "is" what actually "is". Hence the title of the thread referring to the thought experiment of the "Matrix".

---

We know for a 100% fact that our senses don't represent reality truthfully. That's what illusions demonstrate, and the effect is so strong that you cannot consciously compensate for it.
We do we really, REALLY know? That we have experiences, and that there are commonalities among them that allow us to see meaning
in repeated patterns.

If our species was operating on a purely sensory mode what you assert would be 100% true. However, we have since The Enlightenment had the use of empirical science to validate or invalidate sensory impressions.
Or, as as one of the few sensible things Ayn Rand said. 'If you get the way you classify concepts wrong it won't just be a in interesting philosopical game you're playing, it could kill you"

We use empirical science via the use of our senses to validate or invalidate sensory impression. See the paradox.

[Bibliofagus]

And there it is. Special snowflake dreamed up all the works of art, languages, designs, laws of science etc etc he is familiar with, all by himself.
The arrogance of that position is staggering to me.

Neutral monism... it's just as rational of an idea as any, in my opinion. Who are you to judge? You have a better explanation of consciousness?

I'm female, by the way. Way to make assumptions.

Your arrogance is also very frustrating.

---

My mistake. I was reading two threads at the same time and accidentally posted my response in the wrong one.

Would you like me to repost it in the correct thread? I'm asking because there is a real question in there.

And sorry about the gender mixup.

[sswhateverlove]

Is it religious? Doesn't matter - it is not rational.

Well thank you for your (I assume) expert opinion on what's rational. There are others with perspectives I value more (no offense) who would argue that it is rational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

[Whateverist]

We often get new posters who put out similarly themed threads: something about Darwin, something about the cosmological arguement, something challenging the validity of 'reality' as it appears on the surface. These apologists are always coming up with identities and credentials which they think will make us think twice about their claims. You, sswhatever, do interact more than most .. but like most you lean on credentials a lot. Just saying.