What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Arising_uk]

All discourse is, is simply communication. This is what I mean to say when I site those that try and use vocabulary to impress. I care more about getting an idea across. I could care less as to impressing people with my knowledge of vocabulary, this is not an English language vocabulary forum, so I don’t try and improve it. It doesn’t matter; it’s just so much superfluous crap. For me, here, easy to understand pointed commentary is all any serious philosopher should impart.

Discourse [n. dis-kawrs, -kohrs, dis-kawrs, -kohrs; v. dis-kawrs, -kohrs] noun, verb, -coursed, -cours•ing.
noun
1. communication of thought by words; talk; conversation: earnest and intelligent discourse.
2. a formal discussion of a subject in speech or writing, as a dissertation, treatise, sermon, etc.
3. Linguistics . any unit of connected speech or writing longer than a sentence.

verb (used without object)
4. to communicate thoughts orally; talk; converse.
5. to treat of a subject formally in speech or writing.

verb (used with object)
6. to utter or give forth (musical sounds).

Synonyms
1. discussion, colloquy, dialogue, chat, parley.

I thought you said this wasn't an English vocabulary lesson?

Kant’s ‘a priori,’ as far as I’m concerned, is not saying anything of importance, because all knowledge originated from experience (a posteriori). It is then passed on to each of us via teaching (a posteriori), which is assumed to be based upon experience, and as such requires our ‘belief.’ In a court of law, in the US at least, it would be considered hearsay, which is inadmissible (not to be considered as viable). But we believe our teachers anyway.

I've not read enough Kant but my guess is that he'd have been smart enough to understand your point and addressed it.

Once I had a high school Science teacher, quite seriously, say that if one spun clockwise and got dizzy that they could spin counterclockwise and get un-dizzy. So I put it to the test, ensuring that I spun at a relative consistent rate and duration in both directions and of course they did not cancel each other. The cochlea does not work that way!

Is the cochlea involved in this 'dizzyness'? As those who do twirls for a living appear to think it has to do with vision, hence they 'spot'. Or is it that the turn the head after the body that stops the 'dizzyness'?

Kant’s a priori and a posteriori:

a priori proposition: a proposition whose justification does not rely upon experience (observation).

a posteriori proposition: a proposition whose justification does rely upon experience (observation).


So as far as I’m concerned:

A posteriori (experience) -> published (book) -> learned (memorized {even if associated with prior learning}) ≠ a priori (That, that does not rely upon experience). Thus a priori is a falsehood; is absurd! It says absolutely nothing of the one that memorizes the originally a posteriori data except that at the moment of being told they have faith in the teacher and that after the fact they are a recording device of varying accuracy.

Personally I tend to agree that its all from experience but do you think inductive truths are truths? As they appear aposteriori, i.e. we say "Every X we've seen has Y properties so all X we shall see will have Y properties" and empirically this appears to be true every time we test it. But the logical truths appear to not need this continual testing, i.e. if I know what bachelor and unmarried male means, then I know its a truth that there is no empirical case that can make this proposition false . i.e. all bachelors are unmarried males. I think you should think of an apriori truth as more known from its terms, rather than needing empirical testing, for example P or not P is an apriori truth regardless of any substitutions of P.

Very Important: DO NOT SCROLL DOWN the large WHITESPACE has a PURPOSE!

Consider the following then close your eyes while continuing to consider what it means. Ensure that you have your hand on your mouse so you can scroll down while your eyes are closed while still considering its meaning. After you think you know what it means, with your eyes still closed scroll down and then open them to reveal the answer.
Here is what you must consider:

YETAPONTER ZU HOUN DERTURPENYASSER







Okay, what am I considering? Well its in the English alphabet but I don't recognize any of the terms. Could be a foreign language but don't recognize it and the letter-combinations appear a bit odd so probably not and just made-up. So no meaning to consider at present and no way of thinking I know what it means as at present.




Dum dee dum.






Doobie dobie doo.










Ho hum.





















Yawn!
















YETAPONTER ZU HOUN DERTURPENYASSER = knowledge is always observed experience.

How do I know that "God cannot both exist and not exist at the same time"?

You have just observed (experienced) the answer of it’s meaning, which could not have been known otherwise. From day one we are taught everything that we know (a posteriori) and our minds are capable of extrapolating solution from the plethora of stored data which gives the illusion of a priori. Now if I correlated each group of letters on the left of the equation with those groups on the right, you would be able to use that a posteriori data to aid in the translation of future ideas written in this language, and if you buy into Kant, you would believe it to be a priori, when in fact it’s not. You can call it that, but it's meaning is insignificant, otherwise explain the significance.

You assume that the words had this meaning before you assigned it?

I submit that observation/experience is the totality of input from all your sensors.

I think I would agree. How does that relate to what many would call the apriori logical truths?

P.S. If you basically knew what it meant prior to opening your eyes, it's only due to the context that lead up to the experiment, which is also the extrapolation of previous a posteriori data.

There was no meaning before I opened my eyes?

Close you eyes and imagine a situation where something exists and does not exist at the same time. How do you empirically test for this being an absolute truth as its false all the time?

[MJA]

If the number is not relevant than why is it relevent to you?

Do you think that i just fell from the sky with all this crap? I can scientifically and philosophically support anything that i have to offer here.
I skip to the 'punchline' and some freak out and some are open enough to question.
One point is that a Planck length is the size of a Perspective, a 'Soul', and a planck moment is a unit of Perception, a 'percept'. If you are still bent on 'correcting' some perceived misunderstanding, just link me to it.
Otherwise, 'nuff said.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126626/ ... iverse.htm
"...known as the Planck time, only 10-43/sec..."

http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org ... ality.html
"And let's ponder that initial inflationary period of the physical universe: the infinitesimal Planck moment, the tiniest moment in physics, 10-43 second—a ..."

It's all over the net.
'Nough said.

Dear nameless Nough said,

Do you believe in all scientific theories or just the uncertain probable sub atomical wave particle duality speed of light perceptual content of quantum theoretical kinematical and mechanical Ones?
And then, if a theory were true it would be called true not a theory right?
So a theory is what?
Thanks,

=

[MJA]

"Personally I tend to agree that its all from experience but do you think inductive truths are truths? As they appear aposteriori, i.e. we say "Every X we've seen has Y properties so all X we shall see will have Y properties" and empirically this appears to be true every time we test it. But the logical truths appear to not need this continual testing, i.e. if I know what bachelor and unmarried male means, then I know its a truth that there is no empirical case that can make this proposition false . i.e. all bachelors are unmarried males. I think you should think of an apriori truth as more known from its terms, rather than needing empirical testing, for example P or not P is an apriori truth regardless of any substitutions of P."


Empirically I am a bachelor united infinitely with the equitable Universe called truth.
Mathematically I simply am

=

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



As you say, in one instance you are, united infinitely with the equitable Universe called truth.


In that same instance is there a part of you that is somehow separated from the equitable Universe called truth enough so that you can be formed as a consciousness.

Thus affording you being able to understand or see the truth however because of the necessity of separation, in order to have a formed consciousness, we are unable to see the whole truth as it is.


Because of our nature we are unable to see or understand truth.


However we can conceive of the possibility...




...and we can see ourselves within the nature of truth.





.

[MJA]

There are things that pull at my equitable unity or truth all the time,
But that is what gives me my conviction, my passion, my strength.

Thanks for the nice response,

=

[Godfree]

Hearsay ,,,!!!
thats all religion has .
in a court of law , religion has nothing .
and yet society accepts it as though it were the truth .
WHY ,
why would society see the nothing as something ,
surely it's just wishful thinking ,
logic proof and reason , don't come into it ,
it is an irrational illogical conclusion based on emotion and desire ,
nothing to do with reality .
not true , real or proven in any way ,
and yet whole societies base there philosophy for life on it ,
ADULT ,
to become an adult , we must give up such childish things ,
and face reality , those who remain in wishing land ,
are still children ,,,!!!

[lancek4]

Hearsay ,,,!!!
thats all religion has .
in a court of law , religion has nothing .
and yet society accepts it as though it were the truth .
WHY ,
why would society see the nothing as something ,
surely it's just wishful thinking ,
logic proof and reason , don't come into it ,
it is an irrational illogical conclusion based on emotion and desire ,
nothing to do with reality .
not true , real or proven in any way ,
and yet whole societies base there philosophy for life on it ,
ADULT ,
to become an adult , we must give up such childish things ,
and face reality , those who remain in wishing land ,
are still children ,,,!!!

The defining of religion has been problematic. I remember in a class I took in 'history of consciousness' dept, dr lease offered the following definition, as qualifiers (as I remeber):

Religion is characterized by:

A or at least one diety, which is proposed as a being separate but involved with our world.

a cosmology - which is a sensibility of the world that involves a person's role as a human being.

A cosmogeny - a definate idea of how the world began, an involves an idea of progress and culmination.

Dogma - a set of ideals by which the human being is involved with the previous three sets (above). This is a particular ethics, morality or code of behavior which identifies the constituent.

Righteousness - that which allows the faithful truth; religion is set as correct against other beliefs.

Violence - the previous five sets (above) rely upon an implicit or explcit enactment of violence, which ensures the veracity of the belief.



How would you define 'religion'?

[Godfree]

To Define Religion ,,,
first I would look at the history of religion , the evolution of religion ,
in the first instance I believe religion was a monkey responding to the natural forces as though it was an entity .
from there the story just slowly got bigger and more grand with each generation ,
the problem for government was with the peasants having gods for this and gods for that , control of the masses requires a single voice of authority ,
so they came up with the one god idea ,
and then the idea that you will be tortured and or killed if you don't agree ,
and christianity was born ,
Heres the problem for me ,
it's insane , we have evolved with religion , and it seems natural , almost instinctive to believe in such nonsense ,
well it's no wonder , we have been listening to the fantasy for millions of years ,
I don't think it's good for society to keep them ignorant and in the dark,
I think government has a duty to be real ,
and supporting and funding religion , just keeps the madness going ,
there must come a time , when we put such childish things behind us,,,!!!

[MJA]

Religion is a faith that stands in the Way of truth.
And the last few posts are the proof.

=

[SpheresOfBalance]

Religion, for some, is an honest attempt to address metaphysics, but for some with agendas of self interest, a "will to power" is superimposed, unfortunately such is some men. The problem with denouncing it categorically is the generalization of it's entirety, which is a foolish venture. No generalization of any topic so broad address's both it's truth's and falsehoods, and there are those moments of distinction. The problem can be for those that have tasted it's falsehoods and found it bitter. Truth is the totality of all that is, but it takes a wise man to sift through the plethora of bits of data to find where they actually fit in the puzzle that is life. I do not categorically denounce anything, and always try and sift through it placing it's truths and falsehoods in their proper place. To categorically denounce any body of belief, is exactly the same as to categorically accept it. A wise man understands this truth; there is truth and falsehood everywhere; they know, and are specific to, no category, other than their own.

[lancek4]

I can appreciate Godfrres historical analysis.
Conflated with mjb -

I still ask for your defintions of religion.

Perhaps challenge my proposals.

Is religion only 'labeled' or 'identified' ? So if a say 'I'm going to the store'; are there 'stores' that are not stores? Is a 'market' not a store?

If I say 'I have a belief'. Is this a religion? How many people who have the same belief does it take for there to be a religion?

Are we talking only the 'big' names religions?

What do you mean by religion when you reference others no seeing the truth?

Can you offer a reason, like SOB offers 'distortion', why people cannot see the Truth?
What is keeping them from it?

[lancek4]

Hey AUK,
I was attempting to cloase my eyes and think of something that exists and not exist at the same time.

Honestly, the first thing I thought of was a unicorn. But that thing might be too vague, too easy for argument. You couldn't have had in mind a mythological beast.

Then I thought of electrons. Uncertainty principle. Is this what you had in mind in your offer?

[chaz wyman]

I have used 'realize' as meaning: to make real. When one 'realizes' as Truth, it is that which has been 'supplied' that the individual may may have reality.

For example: Chaz's 'atheism'. He says it has 'no content' in that as a poisition it is simply a negation of that which has "content', namely, theism.
Yet one cannot exist without the other, together they supply a 'true' reality: the condition of knowledge.

Thus I have said that to say 'truth is' is to indicate a particular condition of knowledge that is our moment. Only through the preceding posts (in this case) can more than one of us 'agree' what it means

It is otherwise, and upon subsequent analysis, a platitude, an empty statement, because it only gains it meaning thru the discourse surrounding. If I posit that it indicates a 'universal' or 'static' condition which applies at all times, like it is an 'actual' condition, it is because we ourselves are denying our ability to come upon a 'true' reality, a 'true' meaning in 'actual' terms between us, and likewise are asserting the reality of the platitude as if such thing actually is not a truism or merely a saying that expresses fultilty of our endeavor.

Well Put!

[chaz wyman]

Well I'll be.. I go away for a few days the the Canaries and what do i find?

TEN pages added to this voluminous thread!
ANd most of it regurgitations of previously stated opinions!

Was it not bas enough coming home to a dead water boiler- no heat or hot water!

[chaz wyman]

Hey AUK,
I was attempting to cloase my eyes and think of something that exists and not exist at the same time.

Honestly, the first thing I thought of was a unicorn. But that thing might be too vague, too easy for argument. You couldn't have had in mind a mythological beast.

Then I thought of electrons. Uncertainty principle. Is this what you had in mind in your offer?

A large PINK bear!

There is NO pink bear. Forget the Pink bear!
No close your eyes and what do you see?
Ahahahah!
Yes, you can't remove that image from your mind can you?
Does that mean it exists?
It exists in your imagination, but was never real - so does not exist.