[B0ycey]

I like to throw in a new thought on the Agora forum every so often to get people's creative imagination going. This can be this weeks notion.

Have you ever thought about what life is? It is amazing to think just how artificial the world is when you consider everything. Think about it. An atom is 99.9% empty space. If we were to only see how the world is like in the form of electronic, protons and neutrons, we would only be a faint ghostly figure and we would hardly be visible at all. And atoms have no colour. What we actually see is the light waves rebounding back from the object itself rather than the object itself having colour. So our brains literally make things up for us. We see a universe that is in essence fictional, or to put it another way, a certain form of reality. And don't get me started on optical illusions that can literally make up an entire false reality. So is our brains nothing more than our own personal Matrix?

And now to my point. Can we trust or eyes, or in fact our senses in general when determining reality? Perhaps we can in the world we know and understand, but what about the things we don't yet fully understand like quantum mechanics or astrophysics? Perhaps we will never fully understand everything our universe has to offer because our senses won't allow it. Maybe you could create artificial senses, however even then, our senses are required to process the information and maybe that isn't possible, even with an artificial aide. So are we destined to never understand everything?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

In a short answer: no, we cannot entirely trust our senses. It's been established that our brain makes as much sense of the perceivable universe as possible, creating a distorted version of what's really there: when we recall memories, slight details change each time since our memories are not immutable and unchanging; when we use our eyes, there is a great deal of natural distortion and blind spots (and I'm not just talking about peripheral vision) which our brain fills in as best it can based on pattern recognition; and so forth.

Even our "reality" changes from person to person. Color-blindness is one such minor example: it isn't limited to red/green and there are people who have difficulty seeing certain colors or distinguishing between other colors or different shades of colors. How they see the world is different from how you or I do, even if it is only a minor, slight difference.

I think Philip K. Dick may have summed this up best when he said the following in VALIS: "The universe is information and we are stationary in it, not three dimensional and not in space or time."

[jakell]

I like to throw in a new thought on the Agora forum every so often to get people's creative imagination going. This can be this weeks notion.

Have you ever thought about what life is? It is amazing to think just how artificial the world is when you consider everything. Think about it. An atom is 99.9% empty space. If we were to only see how the world is like in the form of electronic, protons and neutrons, we would only be a faint ghostly figure and we would hardly be visible at all. And atoms have no colour. What we actually see is the light waves rebounding back from the object itself rather than the object itself having colour. So our brains literally make things up for us. We see a universe that is in essence fictional, or to put it another way, a certain form of reality. And don't get me started on optical illusions that can literally make up an entire false reality. So is our brains nothing more than our own personal Matrix?

And now to my point. Can we trust or eyes, or in fact our senses in general when determining reality? Perhaps we can in the world we know and understand, but what about the things we don't yet fully understand like quantum mechanics or astrophysics? Perhaps we will never fully understand everything our universe has to offer because our senses won't allow it. Maybe you could create artificial senses, however even then, our senses are required to process the information and maybe that isn't possible, even with an artificial aide. So are we destined to never understand everything?

Our brains build representations or models of the outside world using qualities such as colour and solidity (referring to the above) in order that we may function in it, models that are transferable and largely consistent.

As a survival mechanism we need to believe in these qualities, we especially had to believe in them when times were much harder. Those of us who are in the cradle of stable and supportive societies can probably afford the luxury of deconstructing these models, but are very likely to construct other ones as a replacement.

A better route is to not search so doggedly for the so-called 'reality' behind these necessary illusions and accept that they will always be incomplete. This acceptance though is not defeat, as some would see it, but refocuses our attention on our own consciousness - an equally useful, if not superior, exercise IMO.

[jakell]

Sorry.. Double post

[NightShadows]

Well this is why science will never truly explain what the world or existence even is and at best we can do is simply guess or imagine what the point of our lives are. I think that in general, we are spiritual animal/beings and it's up to ourselves to decide what is meaningful and important, and the best way to live. Unfortunately we're stuck viewing the world through a lens of purely mathematical, and scientific quandries; wherein even when it comes to our own selves, we are nothing more then biological beings that are at best, prisoners of our biological programming. It's well known that doctors are encouraged and taught to not only view the body as a biological machine, but also typically people as well, and the strange thing is we've taken this perspective into regular and normal lives, and convinced ourselves this is all we merely are. We're programmed to follow a program, and all we can do is take part in rote and pre-programmed actions and choices.

But the underlining dilemma is, do human beings not have choice? are we not sentient and conscious beings? why then if we have free-will, do we not only decide to live this way, but convince ourselves that everything is pre-determined and decided?

When a person says "it's just the way things are" often times they are referring to the status quo; without fully realizing it.

Maybe at best this simply serves as a sleep walking dream machine at best, which exists rides on the possibility a degree and sum of humanity will accept this program.

[Besoeker]

[quote="NightShadows"
But the underlining dilemma is, do human beings not have choice? are we not sentient and conscious beings? why then if we have free-will, do we not only decide to live this way, but convince ourselves that everything is pre-determined and decided?[/quote]
I, for one, am not convinced.
Who/what pre-determines and decides it?
Don't accidents ever happen?

[B0ycey]

Unfortunately we're stuck viewing the world through a lens of purely mathematical, and scientific quandries; wherein even when it comes to our own selves, we are nothing more then biological beings that are at best, prisoners of our biological programming.

I wouldn't use the term unfortunate, but I do agree with this statement entirely. I look at the world with my eyes and then compare it with what I have learnt from science and I know EVERYTHING I SEE is nothing more than what my brain tells me to see. It takes in information and interprets the information to something I can understand. But, and this is the mindboogling thing, it's not real. There is no colour. Nothing is completely solid. Matter is energy and time is relative. So we can only understand the universe with what our senses allow us to understand. Because our brain only understands this information and then interprits the information to us (our essense). And our essence is our brain. So we can only have limits we what we can ever understand about our universe because our brain has limits in what information it can process.

[jakell]

I wouldn't use the term unfortunate, but I do agree with this statement entirely. I look at the world with my eyes and then compare it with what I have learnt from science and I know EVERYTHING I SEE is nothing more than what my brain tells me to see. It takes in information and interprets the information to something I can understand. But, and this is the mindboogling thing, it's not real. There is no colour. Nothing is completely solid. Matter is energy and time is relative. So we can only understand the universe with what our senses allow us to understand. Because our brain only understands this information and then interprits the information to us (our essense). And our essence is our brain. So we can only have limits we what we can ever understand about our universe because our brain has limits in what information it can process.

Hopefully it's only mindboggling the first few times we realise this, otherwise we are going to stay pretty stupid.
It's only really a blow to that part of the mind we choose to label the ego and, hopefully again, there is a bit more to our mental makeup than that. IMO, it's only really upon accepting (ie a step beyond not merely describing) our limitations that we may continue to grow.

One of the things that has moved into the space vacated by older religions is something called Transhumanism, which is largely based around the constant denial of our limitations, both physical and mental. The Internet has also fueled such feelings by giving us an impression of infinite (cyber)space to which we are not tied to by reciprocity.
Scientism also shows this sort of tendency in the confident claim (usually at the end-point of a discussion) that, although we may not understand something, a point will come where we do understand it. I referred to this in the previous paragraph as describing but not accepting.

Going back to that 'blow' to the ego, it can redirect our attention to something that may bear more fruit, and which I described here:

Our brains build representations or models of the outside world using qualities such as colour and solidity (referring to the above) in order that we may function in it, models that are transferable and largely consistent.

As a survival mechanism we need to believe in these qualities, we especially had to believe in them when times were much harder. Those of us who are in the cradle of stable and supportive societies can probably afford the luxury of deconstructing these models, but are very likely to construct other ones as a replacement.

A better route is to not search so doggedly for the so-called 'reality' behind these necessary illusions and accept that they will always be incomplete. This acceptance though is not defeat, as some would see it, but refocuses our attention on our own consciousness - an equally useful, if not superior, exercise IMO.

[B0ycey]

One of the things that has moved into the space vacated by older religions is something called Transhumanism, which is largely based around the constant denial of our limitations, both physical and mental. The Internet has also fueled such feelings by giving us an impression of infinite (cyber)space to which we are not tied to by reciprocity.
Scientism also shows this sort of tendency in the confident claim (usually at the end-point of a discussion) that, although we may not understand something, a point will come where we do understand it. I referred to this in the previous paragraph as describing but not accepting.

I certainly agree with what you write, but anyone in denial about human limitations doesn't understand their limitations and perhaps not worth discussing complex concepts with. As for Science, I think scientists do accept that there are things that can never go beyond theory. Multiverse being one of them. Perhaps string theory too. But really this thread was started by myself to be an appetiser for another I will do soon about time. You see, space is something. But we consider it a vacuum. We can't see, smell, touch, taste or hear it. We know it's there but what is it? It can't be nothing because it's expanding and for gravity to work, it needs to react as a fabric. But even though this nothingness is everywhere, our brains can't process what it is. So we just accept space is a vacuum. But as space does something, how is it a vacuum? So I suspect whatever space is, we will never truely know. But I suspect, space and time are related. And not by just spacetime. I actually think space is TIME or what our brains perceive time to be anyway. But when I figure what I think space is, I will do a thread on it.

Going back to that 'blow' to the ego, it can redirect our attention to something that may bear more fruit, and which I described here:

I agree with everything that you wrote here and you have a theological approach to your thinking which is something I enjoy reading. I admire your posts jakell, even if I don't reply. I only wish more intelligent posters would enter the Agora forum more often rather than waste their time and energy on xenophobic and nationalistic posts/topics. We have some incredibly smart people on PoFo who don't use their gifts on philosophical concepts.

[jakell]

I agree with everything that you wrote here and you have a theological approach to your thinking which is something I enjoy reading. I admire your posts jakell, even if I don't reply. I only wish more intelligent posters would enter the Agora forum more often rather than waste their time and energy on xenophobic and nationalistic posts/topics. We have some incredibly smart people on PoFo who don't use their gifts on philosophical concepts.

You're right, my approach has become more theological. Because religion has been with us for such a long time, I regard it as a good model of how humans actually think and experience the world as opposed to how we prefer to see ourselves. People are put off by the mystical element in it, but that's an unavoidable component as it stretches back to when we had no external concepts to use.
In a fashion I suppose I am in favour of demystifying religion but at the same time realise that this is probably impossible as it deals with the boundaries of human understanding. I don't mind this so much as I'm fairly comfortable with the concept of the 'mystery', ie something that we don't really try too hard to solve as we know that it teaches us more if we leave it as it is.

Regarding forums and smart people. Forums naturally attract these, but I think they have become less useful and more and more smart people are simply spinning their wheels in the face of other smart folks who simply know how to destroy nuance and deeper thought. The only real difference between these two groups is that the latter want to conclude discussions as hastily as possible rather than encourage them.
Religion in particular is a difficult one to discuss, facing opposition from other religionists and from fundamentalist materialists too. a pretty beleaguered position. The latter though are the ones to watch as they don't understand (or are in denial) that they also have a strong belief system.

[B0ycey]

Regarding forums and smart people. Forums naturally attract these, but I think they have become less useful and more and more smart people are simply spinning their wheels in the face of other smart folks who simply know how to destroy nuance and deeper thought. The only real difference between these two groups is that the latter want to conclude discussions as hastily as possible rather than encourage them.

I don't mind opposite opinions on a forum. The best way to get your opinion across on here is by arguing with an opposite opinion to yours. And you know when you get the better of someone because they change the subject, try and change what you said or they sometimes even deny they said the things that you can prove wrong (which is great because you can quote their contradiction back to them). And once you get a checkmate you walk away knowing any future reader will know whose opinion has a stronger foundation. Whether you would get on with such a person in real life is another thing. But on the internet, I think it's important to have 'frienemies'

But what annoys me is people use a philosophical/historic approach to their thinking when arguing xenophobic or nationalistic posts, seem smart to a point, but you never see these people interact on Agora and use their intelligents and concepts for humane and scientific topics. And sometimes opposite opinions or a new way of thinking can be important when you are trying to figure out how you (yourself) thinks about the world.

Religion in particular is a difficult one to discuss, facing opposition from other religionists and from fundamentalist materialists too. a pretty beleaguered position. The latter though are the ones to watch as they don't understand (or are in denial) that they also have a strong belief system.

Actually I agree. Religion gets a raw deal on here. And considering you cannot prove that God does not exist, it seems unfounded. I do laugh to myself when posters moan about religion interfering with people's lives (which it does), but do the same back with they atheists views and also seem fine with Dawkins and co trying to discredit religion (this aimed less with PoFo posters but with scientific/biological atheists) with skeltons that are not even complete.