3RU7AL

He is a recruiter from the ECK cult.

I'm pretty sure this qualifies as an unsubstantiated ad hominem attack.

If your definition of what is real is what you perceive then yes but if your definition is whatever qaulia exist regardless of our ability to confirm said qualia then we just cannot be certain.

I believe it is safe enough to say that what is "real" is quantifiable by corroborated scientific observation.

Providing our perceptions reflect reality.

So I don't have a definition for what is "real" although I accept my perceptions as "real" for convenience sake.

I believe it is safe enough to say that what is "real" is quantifiable by corroborated scientific observation.

But that doesn't cover very much.  The rest of it is sort of a "best guess" of "uncharted unstable territory".

Netflix has a new series called "Maniac" which is an interesting exploration on this subject.

Are you willing to look outside the veil of the physical world

Is there a reliable repeatable method of accomplishing This? Perhaps one which can be observed and subjected to rigorous scientific testing?

when i read this i laughed out loud.

Thank you.

I'm not sure I can authoritatively answer your other questions though.

That is why I am a soft solipsist and a hard skeptic.

That would seem to be epistemologically prudent.

I would say that it may be impossible to be objectively certain that anything is "real" or "exists" regardless of one's preferred definition.

The difference between a balloon gong from glasgow to london and a pilot flying to same route is that one ended up there and the other wanted to go there.   

I'm not sure it's fair to say the pilot "wanted" to "go there".  It seems more likely they were told to "go there" and paid to "go there" and warned of horrific consequences if they did not "go there" within the acceptable margin of error.

These are qaulia not quanta. This thread is nothing more than an avenue to discuss the difference.

The most annoying thing about the idea that our universe isn't real is that you can't really prove the universe is real without making the supposition that the universe is real. Now I enjoy my life and pursue happiness because I am happy whether the universe is real or not but I just can't shake the realisation that my experience may be completely illusory.

I am a soft solipsist, which is to say that I am willing to accept that my senses reflect reality provincially as a convenience since this tends to make my experience more pleasant than if I were to ignore my perceptions of it.

Can anyone find a way to be certain that anything exists besides your experience in and of itself?

This is an ontological problem.

Please provide your preferred definitions of "real" and "exists" as opposed to "illusory" and "non-existent".

I am not comfortable with using public shaming as a punishment. That would be to legitimize personal attacks as a tool for moderators, when moderators prohibit other users from making personal attacks. 

+1

I don't care about anything you've said. You are superstitious.

And The Ultimate Reality is not contingent on humans to exist. If that was the case. It wouldn't be The Ultimate Reality.

There is no reality without God, so either you do believe God exists or you are just saying what you think sounds convincing.

Just say, "The Ontological Argument".

Why wouldn't a balloon have free will?

Presumably because it has no soul, which would actually be quite difficult to prove.

Typical of such an internal states would be 'desires' - say a desire to to go Bordeaux.   Which raises the question of what is a 'desire' made of.   It is a desire a physical object?   If so, I'd like to know how that works!   but if a desire isn't a physical object, then there is no guarantee it is subject to ordinary causality.

Does an insect have a desire to consume sustenance and procreate?

Does an insect therefore have free will? 

I can detect reality, and it is actually throug detecting reality that I can strongly make the claim that it is logical to believe that there is undetected reality.

What's the alternative? Outright denying the reality of your experience.

And if you are having an experience at all, you are detecting some form of reality.

Ok, so do you think it would be fair to say you know any of this because of Gnosis?

Mixed with my own observations as well. All knowledge is at the finger tips of every soul, not just mine.

It appears we have uncovered common ground.

I agree that, when it comes to "spiritual" or "divine" or "metaphysical" Q&A, the answer should always be, "you should never trust another soul, and you should never expect another soul to trust you, go look for yourself".

You might like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGarjovMfj0

You are describing noumenon.

Take away the noise and you hear nothing aka slience.

Take away the visible radiation and you see nothing aka lack of light.

Take away the finite, occupied space Universe and what remains is macro-infinite, non-occupied space.

Take away the ego, and the truth remains unfettered..........................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................................................................................................

................infinite..........................................SPACE{>*<)  i  (>*<)SPACE.................................infinite............................................

........................................................................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................................................................

If you are unable to detect sound, it is illogical to conclude that there is no sound.
If you are unable to detect radiation, it is illogical to conclude that there is no radiation.
If you are unable to detect finite-occupied-space-universe, it is illogical to conclude that there is no finite-occupied-space-universe.

How would you know if perhaps, maybe, we were in something like...  I don't know...

I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.

Me either. I think it is because the idea of freewill is intimately linked with consciousness, and we do not understand consciousness. If we did, then a workable definition might be the ability to make conscious choices.

When are you going to tell us what exists outside of your more limited concept --because of not being eternally existent--- of a finite, occupied space Universe?

I'm not going to tell you what I can't possibly know.

Besides the fact that it does not and cannot possibly matter in any practical or verifiable sense to us as humans. 

Unfortunately, if I inform you that this is an identity fallacy, you would counter and say I am making a no true scottsman fallacy.

But I will say it anyway. Killing people for their beliefs is not Christian.

This makes things very confusing, but the reality of it all is that many religions are an expression of what they observe from collective societies outside this physical experience.

Ok, so do you think it would be fair to say you know any of this because of Gnosis?

Those are not my definitions, I just copied then from a couple of dictionary sites. If you disagree with the definitions, feel free to create your own. That however, would change the nature of the argument.

You can use any definition you please.

I've never seen a logically coherent definition for free will.

And who is trying to kill you or trample your rights?

I should have been more specific.

It would seem that mustardness believes his opinion about what may or may not exist beyond our epistemological limits is FACT (quanta).

It would seem that mustardness believes his opinion (characterization) of my attempts to communicate with them is also FACT (quanta).

It would seem that mustardness is conflating qualia with quanta.

If you want examples of people killing for qualia, you might check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence_among_Christians

Even Christians will kill each other for being the wrong type of Christian.

It is difficult to treat someone charitably if they are trying to kill you or trample your rights.

1} And/or they keep reposting irrational, illogical lack of common sense statements, and offer no shred of rational, logical common sense to support if not validate their conclusions.

2} And/or  if they keep denying obvious rational, logical common sense pathways that validate truth and invalidate non-truths/lies. 

3} And/or they refuse to address our comments as stated, or create misleading statements  that do no reflect what was actually stated.

4} ?

Case in point.

For example [1]"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate" or [2]"the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded". "Free will" is just a label to describe the ability to make a choice.

As for your first definition, "necessity" and "fate" are unfalsifiable concepts and are therefore blatant appeals to ignorance.

Brains are subjective, computers are objective.

Perhaps its easier to tthink about 'people' rather than robots.

Imagine a 'person' who moved only when pushed.  Push him and he'll keep walking in the same direction until he is pushed to go in a different direction.   Clearly such a 'person' is lacking something that regular people have - i.e. 'free will'

Free will is something you, I and airline pilots have that balloons and industrial robots don't.  What it is it hard to pin down, but I think that it is mistake to dismiss 'free will' as non-existent or to define it in such a way that one can ignore the philosophical issues it raises- such as if a computer/robot can be programmed to manifest free will - it is certainly manifested in human brains!

There is a difference between the balloon and the pilot and the difference is will but having will does not necessitate freewill. The pilot could decide to fly to Bordeaux, or even into a mountain, but why would he? Be careful if there is a reason to do so then it isn't necessarily freewill it is a response to the cited reason and if there is no reason then it is a random act and a random act is not the exercise of freewill it is just rolling dice.

Well stated.

I read briefly your wiki link. What comes to mind is that your hoping to infer that since we cannot sense true, absolute non-occupied space, that, we cannot deduce its existence.  Is  that a fair assessment of what your intentions are? Yes?

You have guessed correctly.

...unless you are someone who deep down longs for the world to conform to themselves.

What Ive also asked you repeatedly, and you did not answer, is what exists outside of our eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe?

My point this entire time has been that NOBODY can say what may or may not exist beyond our ability to observe.

This is called an epistemological limit.

You can talk about logic and common sense and past conversations and ego all day and all night and it doesn't make a lick of difference.

You cannot violate our epistemological limits.

And before you start ()()()()()()()() all over the place, please take a minute to learn the definition of syllogism.

I believe there has to be an offense for their to be tolerance or forgiveness, not simply a difference in opinion.

Unless differing opinions offend you... 

Logically, an infinite stack of paper does not logically preclude other things from existing.

However, an infinite stack of infinitely large paper does preclude other things from existing.

I think what you are saying that we can only be objective from a relative standpoint.This is precisely the reason that operationalism was introduced into scientific experimentation.

But going by your very stringent standards for what actually constitutes "objective", it would seem that nothing short of God actuallly could qualify as an objective observer. Since there are more observers than God, there cannot be objectivity, because only God sees things as they are, and no one else sees things the same way.

By these standards, you can't really make any statements of truth.

But to get back on topic and tie this all in... what this basically all means, and I think you would agree, is that we are ALL WRONG.

...proper orthodox Christianity teaches a way that is superior to tolerance. FORGIVENESS.

It is better to forgive someone than to tolerate them.

What is an objective observer?

And can mathematical statements be objective?

How does the statement "the moose is dead" violate your definition of objective?

An objective statement can only be made by an objective observer.