User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 35

  1. #11
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    The title is an oxymoron.
    You were doing fine until the second word.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  2. #12

    Default What defines reality?

    I do. Then I learned that so do you.
    I have been shedding my God-complex ever since.
    "The purpose of life is to be defeated by greater and greater things." - Rainer Maria Rilke

  3. #13
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloud View Post

    False. Objective reality exists.
    It may exist.

    What defines human perception? Is time really a construct of the human mind? Our experience with time and energy defines our perception of reality.
    Time seems to be connected to change. Our brain interprets two independant events and links them together, without change it'll seem as if we're stuck in time. Agreed that our perception of time would probably be much slower in a dark room than outside, it doesn't completely stop because we will be aware of change within our body. Our internal clock.

    What exactly are you describing as energy?
    Heat or something else?

    What is information, what is change? What is it as a property of the universe? How is it all tied together with time?
    What is thought?
    Yeah... Most would answer it as a response to neurons being fired.

  4. #14
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    This is a topic that will never have a conclusive answer, but is always fun to ponder about when bored.

    Due to the very nature of our finite senses. Our perceptive existance can never be truely objective. At most, we can be as objective as possible, based on the knowledge and wisdom we aquired over the years.

    reality to us in terms of mathematics is hyperbolic If the null line defines objective reality, we can get close, but never hit it completely. Even if our race evolves infinitaly into the future, and more wisdom and knowledge growing each generation. Getting closer and closer to that null line, that objective reality. We will still not travel on it. At the most, along side it.

    So, what defines reality?

    We do, according to our subjective representation of it.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  5. #15
    Alexander the Terrible yenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    If our percepiton is subjective, then the laws of physics would not have appeared.

    Objectivity does not have to be through our own eyes, we can biuld a robot to investigate the truth for us.

    Time and energy defines our perception, without both existence would not be possible.
    neurons being fired does not explain the creation of information out of nothingness.
    The fear of poverty turns people into slaves of money.

    "In this Caesar there are many Mariuses"~Sulla

    Conquer your inner demons first before you conquer the world.

  6. #16
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloud View Post
    If our percepiton is subjective, then the laws of physics would not have appeared.

    Objectivity does not have to be through our own eyes, we can biuld a robot to investigate the truth for us.

    Time and energy defines our perception, without both existence would not be possible.
    neurons being fired does not explain the creation of information out of nothingness.
    Sure, we have a grasp of objectivity, sure we can measure things such as physics. But who is to say that physics is a result from an entirely different dimension we are oblivious too. We can see the objectivity within our limited senses. But we are incapable of doing so when talking about existance as a whole. We can merely sample that part of existance in which we are capable of functioning.
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

  7. #17
    Senior Member Snow Turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloud View Post
    If our percepiton is subjective, then the laws of physics would not have appeared.
    Lots of people believe that an objective reality exists, but it's acknowledged that we can never grasp it 100%

    Objectivity does not have to be through our own eyes, we can biuld a robot to investigate the truth for us.
    What would this robot be like?
    How does it investigate truth?
    Does it send back data so that we can interpret it?
    Do we program it to interpret things? Which interpretion do we use?

    Time and energy defines our perception, without both existence would not be possible.
    Mind explaining what you mean by energy?

    neurons being fired does not explain the creation of information out of nothingness.
    Hmm. It's certainly interesting to find out when exactly thought is generated. But I guess biology would claim that it's just random, and that it eventually becomes a habit that we continue to repeat.

    But learning new things, we're generating thoughts in a controlled manner so... it seems that we have some sort of influence over our neurons being fired.

  8. #18
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    The way such a robot interprets and communicates information would be irrevocably biased by the cognitive processes of its creators.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  9. #19
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloud View Post
    False. Objective reality exists.
    Really?

    What do you mean by objective reality?

    Do you mean a mind independent realm of objects? That there is at least one object the existence and properties of which do not depend on any perceivers' perceiving them?

    If so, then what justification can you give for your belief that such an objective reality exists? (This position is commonly known as "realism").

    You assert that without this type of objective reality, the laws of physics would not exist, but what are the laws of physics other than the mind's abstract interpretation of other mental deliverances?

    That is, the discipline of physics is a cognitive, and therefore mind dependent, way to explain why our perceptions of physical objects change--but perception is usually conceived of as being representational; i.e., the chair you see is not a physical chair, but a mental object which, according to our best science, is an interpretation of electro-chemical firings in the brain that are not chair-shaped. (Where is the chair that you see? In your brain? Outside your brain? Nowhere at all?)

    But if both the (supposed) physical objects that you see and the physics used to explain why these "physical objects" change are both mind-dependent, how do you know that your mind is simply not creating both the objects that you see and their physics?

    How do you know there is an objective reality?

  10. #20
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kai View Post
    Time seems to be connected to change. Our brain interprets two independant events and links them together, without change it'll seem as if we're stuck in time. Agreed that our perception of time would probably be much slower in a dark room than outside, it doesn't completely stop because we will be aware of change within our body. Our internal clock.
    The concepts of absolute space and time have been empirically discredited by the theory of relativity.

    Even without empirical data suggesting that time is relative, a good case can be made that it is, and I think you're on the right track. If there were no change, then on what basis could we distinguish time T1 from T2? Any distinction apart from change would be a distinction without difference; T1 and T2 would be indiscernible; therefore, T1 and T2 would be identical, (and, without change, this identity relation would hold up to Tn).

    In a world without change, talk of time would add no new, meaningfull content to any sentence. In a world without change, there would be no time. Talk of time only makes sense relative to changing objects; it is the changing objects that exist; time is a relational property that holds between changing objects.

Similar Threads

  1. What is reality to you?
    By phoenity in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 02-26-2011, 11:03 PM
  2. What defines a god (God)?
    By Tamske in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 08-27-2010, 04:48 AM
  3. What Defines You?
    By LunarMoon in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-27-2010, 02:58 PM
  4. What defines who we are?
    By Cenomite in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 10-25-2009, 06:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO