You reject one set of sensory data for another-this is an a priori distinction you have made.
No, it is the product of experience. If my foot falls asleep and I feel it tingling, I don’t believe it is the result of invisible bugs crawling on me.
Likewise, when I wake after dreaming I know what I had experienced was a dream.
Generally speaking, not being able to distinguish between sensory data corresponding to external stimuli and sensory data resulting from organic disturbances is considered psychosis.
It does play into a religious belief, so I won’t deny that.
Well, let’s say I can’t prove there is an afterlife, and I choose to live in accordance with some ways that puts focus on the life now, not later, is it much different? It’s whether or not I believe or assume I reach a higher spiritual plane not of this world after death, and how I live now affects that. Thing is, if you didn’t ask someone, and only observed, you may not find that much in difference of actions til death. Do I have much reason to say there is reason, or it does not exist at all, on the subject of an afterlife? I rather just put focus on life now.
Hell, if I wanted to bring praxeology into it I could say it’s observing whether it’s the right means to achieve the end goal, not that the end goal is good or bad.
Josh,
I do not believe that intersubjective consensus is necessarily a representation of objective reality. See Gettier Problem.
Why is it nonsense? See Rick Strassman.
“But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked. Oh, you can’t help that,’ said the Cat: we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.' How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
You must be,' said the Cat, or you wouldn’t have come here.’
Alice didn’t think that proved it at all; however, she went on And how do you know that you're mad?' To begin with,’ said the Cat, a dog's not mad. You grant that?' I suppose so,’ said Alice.
Well, then,' the Cat went on, you see, a dog growls when it’s angry, and wags its tail when it’s pleased. Now I growl when I’m pleased, and wag my tail when I’m angry. Therefore I’m mad.'” - Alice in Wonderland
Sorry I took so long to respond to this.
What would you say we do observe, strictly speaking?
No I didn’t. Some sense of morality may inhere within me, in terms of instinctively judging some things to be right/good and others to be wrong/bad. But that’s not the same as morality inhering in things external to me.
What do you mean by “wrong” here?
Property rights don’t exist in the same sense as electrons exist. Same thing with morality. They’re simply patterns in the brain. However, that doesn’t mean one cannot or must not derive any meaning from them. Does that make sense?
Well, your definition of “free will” certainly seemed to be contingent on external reality. Is that in fact not the case? Regardless, lucid dreaming does not operate on external reality - it’s entirely within the mind. Controlling dreams has no effect on the outside world.
Really now? I call BS on that.
No, I was stating that we are limited in our potential actions, making completely free will unattainable. Now whether of not those limitations are “real”, or “external” is not my call.
“I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” - Jesus
[quoteuser=“Autolykos”]
Really now? I call BS on that.
[/quote]
Call all you want. While you’re at it, could you whip up a proof for the following claim?
“This statement is false.”
cognition and sensation. Everything else is opinion.
How is your judgment that murder is “wrong” differ from your judgment that a given piece of sandpaper is “abrasive”?
edited because I think this is a poor question. I need to think about it some more.
Ok, how are they ontologically different? Do you have proof that electrons exist? I believe they are still theoretical.
it makes plenty of sense, but how do you justify your claim that electrons exist in a form other than patterns in the brain?
because you have experience disproving the existence of invisible bugs? Or because of a prior decision to interpret sensory data through the lens of circulation theory?
on some level, this is an article of faith.
scare words stopped working on me when I began to consider anarchy as a legitimately arguable. Labels like “psychosis” are a form of control that is used to influence people to trust the theories they have been given over their own minds.
we are all religious, only the smart ones realize it.
I agree. It may not make a bit of difference in the long run. But it could make all the difference. Basically, if you had a divine encounter, it would obliterate all doubt. But if you had an angelic encounter, you might convince yourself that you had food poisoning that day, and hallucinated. And if someone tried to tell you about their legitimate belief system, and they mentioned reincarnation, that might taint whatever else they had to say with the stain of mysticism, whereas otherwise you might have listened. Basically, my only point is that prior distinctions limit our interpretations of sensory data. People tend to ignore or dismiss data that doesnt fit their theory, because they cannot explain it.
Well, in that case I can use a razor and loupe on your statement. Why confine your goals to “this life”? Why not simply seek happiness in life as you know it, without reference to a contrasting (allegedly) mythical life?
Nor do I. However, I can usually discern when something is part of objective reality as opposed to my imagination. I can go for a walk by myself, encounter no one, yet be confident that my subjective experience during the stroll is a representation of objective reality even though no one else can confirm it as it was not a shared experience.
A part of objective reality was experienced, but misidentified. I’m not sure what this proves.
If anyone can really travel out of their body and experience objective reality, there is a cool $million waiting for them - all they have to do is tell James Randi what is under his flowerpot.
except randi only accepts “legitimate” challengers. And he defines all “paranormal” claims to be illegitimate so he can decline anyone he wants. Randi is like michael moore-the loudest voice in the echo chamber.
Go to ingo swann’s website and read some of his scholarly articles, including the paper of the speech he gave at the un on the human body’s 17+ senses, or read about the cia/army remote viewing program in the 80s if you want to hear another side of the story.
Malachi,
I’m not sure why you regard psychosis as a “scare word” or a “label” - I am certainly not calling you psychotic. It is merley a term describing a mental illness in which the sufferer cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.
You are writing replies, so it would seem you think there are others who are also contributing to this forum. I trust you do not suspect this is all a figment of your imagination.
It might be hard to nail down with language, but I think we all understand what is meant by the “real world” and can usually tell it apart from imaginary things. Otherwise I wouldn’t ever drive on the freeway!
Josh, I did not intepret it as a slight. I reject the theory of congenital mental illness. It is simply a way of dehumanizing people who think forbidden thoughts. They get locked up and pumped full of drugs, and they are legally inferior. This also helps to disguise the victims of modern medicine’s assault on health and the resultant vaccine-related illnesses. They can blame the victims and say it was the parent’s genetic material, and rape them financially in terms of medical care and special schooling. in essence, they are saying “there is nothing wrong with society, these people are fucked up.”
you seem to be employing a false dichotomy here, insisting that I reject one set of sensory data. I accept all sensory data, even data I dont understand or find distasteful. This is mindfulness 101.
I believe the dream world is meaningful and valid and I dont have any trouble driving on the highway. But I think oftentimes people live in a sort of dream world anyway, where driving down the highway at 70 mph is seen as “safe” because we do it every day. But actually, there is so much energy and mass involved in an automobile at highway speeds, especially factoring in other vehicles, the risk of a catastrophic incident is an order of magnitude greater than sitting in a block building and walking to work all your life. The risk is still well-managed and mitigated with other measures, so that it is not worthy of consideration for most people. But when a tire blows out at 70 and the car spins into the divider and gets t boned by another vehicle at 70, when they are recovering in the hospital you can generally bet they didnt think that was a possibility when they left for work in the morning. Invalid premises distort theories which distort risk calculation. Maybe she should have gotten a bigger car. Maybe she should have gotten better tires. Mabe she woke up and had a panic attack three days ago with premonitions of a car crash, but everyone she trusted dismissed her fears because “dreams dont mean anything lol”
Josh,
When you are on your solitary walks, how are you experiencing the reality around you?
The Gettier problems were meant to show the potential error in the mind’s interpretation of observed phenomena.
Well, your challenge demonstrates the inherent limitations of intersubjective consensus. In Jeremy Narby’s The Cosmic Serpent, he asks an Amazonian Shaman how he discovered that a certian plant acted as an antidote for the fer de lance snake. He responded that the plant had told him when he was under the influence of the plant mixture brew Ayahuasca. Its flowers had fang shaped parts, which the plant had told him about. Now, can it be “proven” to any of us whether or not this man’s consciousness travelled somewhere else to receive this knowledge? No, not really. Does that mean it didn’t actually happen? I’m not confident enough to judge either way.
I agree. It may not make a bit of difference in the long run. But it could make all the difference. Basically, if you had a divine encounter, it would obliterate all doubt. But if you had an angelic encounter, you might convince yourself that you had food poisoning that day, and hallucinated. And if someone tried to tell you about their legitimate belief system, and they mentioned reincarnation, that might taint whatever else they had to say with the stain of mysticism, whereas otherwise you might have listened. Basically, my only point is that prior distinctions limit our interpretations of sensory data. People tend to ignore or dismiss data that doesnt fit their theory, because they cannot explain it.
Thing is the assumption a divine encounter changes my worldview, and if someone believed in reincarnation it would taint their belief system for me. All these belief systems are just structures, how their structure works is their structure, and mine works another way. I stumbled across a lot of things before I reached this, so I’m not limited in a sense, it’s just a choice of what one (let’s say in a praxeological way since this is the Mises forum) feels is the best suited for them. If something doesn’t fit with my theory evidence I change it.
Well, in that case I can use a razor and loupe on your statement. Why confine your goals to “this life”? Why not simply seek happiness in life as you know it, without reference to a contrasting (allegedly) mythical life?
What if my view in this life does increase the amount of happiness in this life?
Here’s what I wrote a week ago on Heathen world view from my personal blog, keep in mind I wrote it drunk at 5 am, so it may seem chaotic (not much structure), but it’s clear to it’s point.
it was intended more as an example. I did not means to cast aspersions of close-mindedness upon you. I was trying to support my claim that prior worldview affects interpretation of new evidence. Would you agree that is the case?
that all sounds grand.
initially I characterized this as “dogma for the sake of dogma.” I think the blog post was informative though. My question is how do you decide what belongs in the utgard? Isnt this process suceptible to the error I am referring to, where evidence that doesnt fit the theory is ignored or dismissed because it is defined as “meaningless”?
I did not means to cast aspersions of close-mindedness upon you. I was trying to support my claim that prior worldview affects interpretation of new evidence. Would you agree that is the case?
I was just using it as an example as well. What you bring up is a good point depending on the usage of evidence. To explain I’ll explain short what Heathenry is from a reconstructionist standpoint. What I (and many many others) are doing are trying to reconstruct (not create or recreate) the pre-Christian religion of NW Europe, and there are A LOT of factors. What do we base it on? A lot of evidence beyond just the written myths and literature. Over time you come across something, some theories become more plausible or sensible while others become put to the side or disregarded. This plays a lot into world view to reconstruct a view and belief of something that has some “broken links” so to speak. Instead of coming across new evidence, and then trying to incorporate that evidence into a rigid belief, it’s more likely to alter the views or beliefs according to new evidence.
My question is how do you decide what belongs in the utgard? Isnt this process suceptible to the error I am referring to, where evidence that doesnt fit the theory is ignored or dismissed because it is defined as “meaningless”?
The intent of utgard was actually to that of outsiders (or to those who are disruptive to the order of the community, etc.). In most cultures what’s seen as something “outside” or foreign must be proven to have worth and value to those people. In the most plain example having someone prove their worth to another group of people, one’s worth does not carry over to another group (you can also see this in other ancient cultures of which tribes, chieftains, etc. had what particular rank to another set of people, etc.) The term is more associated to people, and can seem rather objective at first (when first researching this I had a hard time understaind the concept of value and worth in Heathenry from econ philosophy, later realizing it does not apply). When I wrote that something was meaningless I’m sure I could have worded it better, but as I said I wrote it while drunk at 5 am and at the time seemed clear.
Thanks for the good discussion. I, too, share an appreciation for thousands of years of western hemisphere history, however my interest finds its expression in the forge, figuratively speaking.
Jackson,
I experience the reality around me through my sensory organs. I’m pretty good at knowing when I’m getting real world sensory data or just imagining or dreaming something.
As far as the Shaman story (and Gettier problems in general) goes, I would say that the right answer to the question was that he discovered a certain plant worked as an antidote when it was tried and it worked. Perhaps he got the inspiration to try it from a vision - after all, there is the apocryphal story about Newton being inspired by a falling apple - but the discovery that it worked can’t be said to really have happened until real world results went as predicted.
And a stopped clock is right twice a day.