|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2009 : 23:26:53 [Permalink]
|
Bah, stupid grammar!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2009 : 11:50:56 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Naturally, as is his wont, Dave has correctly read the damning text of your post. He is right! You are wrong! Cursing the darkness of your careless grammar will not help! YOU USED THE PLURAL TENSE, er.., you said there should be more than one! Face it, you fucked up!
Stud, "muffin" is not "muffins" "One" is not "some" "Fuck" is not "Fart" (well, sometimes...)So..........!
Been pretty damn dull around here recently, huh? We must have put them all to sleep with all the wordy erumation of most of this thread! I think we better shoot it and let it die a peaceful death. Marf's baked enough pies to refilm The Battle of the Century, and few threads in the history of SFN have attracted less attention.
Philosophy is definitely not an opiate nor a nutrient of the Masses! |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 00:03:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Zebra.....
One more bump and I'm a chump!
Hope you haven't retired to the savannah, exhausted by the pincushions bursting with angelic terpsichore that have been on display here for the past week or so!
Damn, I felt I had just about hit full stride when It That Must Be Obeyed decided to take a massive crap and I completely lost the momentum (and about 5 pages of text)! I finally got a 21st century machine and everything's running pretty well now.
Anyway, all I was still really curious about was the answer to this one:| Did you consider the experience of seeing the apparently impossible trick "reality"? If not, why? |
I have James Randi's answer to this apparently innocent question, and I was interested in how you would see it.
|
Sorry for delay, have been working long hours. I do hope your colon is recuperating. 
The experience of watching sleight of hand is a real experience, but the brain makes assumptions which are not truly warranted; therefore I do not consider "the experience of seeing the apparently impossible trick" to = "reality" as in, "what's 'really' happening." (However, to properly discuss this we must go back to page 1 and define "reality".)
How does Randi answer this one? (guess I'm too lazy to go lookin' for the answer myself). How would you? |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 02:43:53 [Permalink]
|
| It was always my hope, in writing novels and stories which asked the question "What is reality?", to someday get an answer. This was the hope of most of my readers, too. Years passed. I wrote over thirty novels and over a hundred stories, and still I could not figure out what was real. One day a girl college student in Canada asked me to define reality for her, for a paper she was writing for her philosophy class. She wanted a one-sentence answer. I thought about it and finally said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That's all I could come up with. That was back in 1972. Since then I haven't been able to define reality any more lucidly. |
Philip K. Dick, 1978
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/21/2009 02:44:05 |
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 17:28:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
| It was always my hope, in writing novels and stories which asked the question "What is reality?", to someday get an answer. This was the hope of most of my readers, too. Years passed. I wrote over thirty novels and over a hundred stories, and still I could not figure out what was real. One day a girl college student in Canada asked me to define reality for her, for a paper she was writing for her philosophy class. She wanted a one-sentence answer. I thought about it and finally said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That's all I could come up with. That was back in 1972. Since then I haven't been able to define reality any more lucidly. |
Philip K. Dick, 1978
|
Thanks for linking that article/speech. The first 1/3 was great, and highly relevant to this discussion. (The middle 1/3 was woo-woo to a degree I did not expect from PKD. I skipped the last 1/3, noticed lots of Bible quotes in it. Interesting tidbit from this piece: PKD apparently considered himself a Gnostic Episcopalian.)
Hey, anyone looking for a gift idea for filthy, the article HH linked here mentions a book called "Snakes of Hawaii" that one of PKD's friends wrote. Sounds like quite a unique addition to any snake aficionado's library. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 17:57:43 [Permalink]
|
Zebra......
Several years ago, I ran into an Internet story about a man in Germany that was a "breatharian" -- some one who stated and believed that he could live indefinitely without any sustenance but water.
His name was Rico Kolodzey and he lived in a obscure little hamlet in Germany - really difficult to locate. .
He had applied to test for the James Randi one million dollar award for demonstrating (to Randi) that one could, in fact, do something "supernatural" -- specifically here, go for ninety days or more without any food of any sort and remain hale and hearty through to the end of the period. Pretty supernatural, alright!
Randi had refused to even consider a test of the man's "breatharian" abilities, saying that the man was "insane". I took issue with Randi's position that the claim should not even be tested, stating in a letter to him that it was inconsistent with his "standing invitation" to anyone to test for supernatural abilities and award $1M to anyone who could demonstrate such abilities in a controlled, double-blind environment. After several exchanges, Randi conceded and told me to produce Kolodzey and he (Randi) would test him.
After considerable effort, I located Kolodzey, told him of Randi's reversal of position, and he agreed to come to the US (Florida) to be tested. We (Randi and I) worked out a rather detailed protocol involving a locked and guarded motel room, medical examinations, weight monitoring, etc. to be used in the test.
Randi, naturally, required Kolodzey to bear all expenses of the testing. After many weeks of e-mail exchange made rather difficult by the fact that I am not very fluent in German and Kolodzey did not speak English, I finally made it clear to Rico that he would need to pay his own transportation costs plus the costs of the testing (which Randi thought would only run about 10 days before Kolodzey relented and required some food.)
Finally understanding that he would be responsible for at least several thousand dollars of expenses, Kolodzey became very indignant and refused to go any further, stating that Randi was a fake and a hypocrite. It was the end of the possibility of scientifically testing the Breatharian concept. Randi simply said, "They always run away before it gets to an actual test. I have never run away!"
I continued a sporadic communication with Randi for some time following the Kolodzey incident. At one point, I asked him if he considered conjurer's illusions to be "reality" in the normal sense of the word. He answered with a question to me, "Do you consider a rainbow to be real?" I responded simply, "yes". His response was, "So do I!" Make what you will of it. As I have argued above, I feel that illusions are real. Real illusions.
I, of course, to remain consistent would have to say that a magician's illusion is fully as real as a rainbow! |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/21/2009 : 21:12:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Thanks for linking that article/speech. The first 1/3 was great, and highly relevant to this discussion. (The middle 1/3 was woo-woo to a degree I did not expect from PKD. I skipped the last 1/3, noticed lots of Bible quotes in it. Interesting tidbit from this piece: PKD apparently considered himself a Gnostic Episcopalian.) |
Yeah, it's always a shame when a man contemplates the nature of reality for most of his adult existence and still somehow ends up on the same superstitious nonsense he was raised to believe in as a child. Just goes to show, even the brightest minds are susceptible to folly if not guided by the clear light of skepticism. Also I blame it on the drugs. What else can account for a conclusion like: | I have an abiding intuition that somehow the world of the Bible is a literally real but veiled landscape, never changing, hidden from our sight, but available to us by revelation. That is all I can come up with—a mixture of mystical experience, reasoning, and faith. |
Seriously, that's just  (and pretty damn light on the "reasoning" part). |
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 08:11:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
At one point, I asked him if he considered conjurer's illusions to be "reality" in the normal sense of the word. He answered with a question to me, "Do you consider a rainbow to be real?" I responded simply, "yes". His response was, "So do I!" Make what you will of it. |
What a conjurer does, he does within the confines of reality. It is an illusion, a trick, by any objective standards, but the target may percieve it as real. From a personal, egocentric point of view, it could be considered real by the target.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 10:44:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
Originally posted by H. Humbert
| It was always my hope, in writing novels and stories which asked the question "What is reality?", to someday get an answer. This was the hope of most of my readers, too. Years passed. I wrote over thirty novels and over a hundred stories, and still I could not figure out what was real. One day a girl college student in Canada asked me to define reality for her, for a paper she was writing for her philosophy class. She wanted a one-sentence answer. I thought about it and finally said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." That's all I could come up with. That was back in 1972. Since then I haven't been able to define reality any more lucidly. |
Philip K. Dick, 1978
|
Thanks for linking that article/speech. The first 1/3 was great, and highly relevant to this discussion. (The middle 1/3 was woo-woo to a degree I did not expect from PKD. I skipped the last 1/3, noticed lots of Bible quotes in it. Interesting tidbit from this piece: PKD apparently considered himself a Gnostic Episcopalian.)
Hey, anyone looking for a gift idea for filthy, the article HH linked here mentions a book called "Snakes of Hawaii" that one of PKD's friends wrote. Sounds like quite a unique addition to any snake aficionado's library.
|
Thanks! But I'm already familiar with that; there is only one snake native to Hawaii, a blind worm snake, but some imports, such as boa constrictors are around. These are released or escaped pets. A worse threat is the possibility of the brown tree snake invading. those have decimated the wildlife as well as causing other problems on Guam. I don't think they have made it there as yet, but the possibility exists.
On Guam, they go snake hunting and trapping, and then have cookouts featuring "hisskabobs." I understand that they're quite tastey.
OK, back to topic.... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 14:07:34 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
What a conjurer does, he does within the confines of reality. It is an illusion, a trick, by any objective standards, but the target may percieve it as real. From a personal, egocentric point of view, it could be considered real by the target.
|
From the standpoint of "reality", what a conjurer does is no different than what Andreas Bocelli does when he sings Pagliacci, which is considered real by everyone listeneing.
He gives a performance. The performance is certainly reality from his viewpoint, the audience's viewpoint, ANY viewpoint. The fact that what a magician does appears to be something else than what he actually does in no way makes the performance less real.
So, of course "illusion" is reality! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 16:31:34 [Permalink]
|
In the eye of the beholder, then? I've always thought so with the caveat that some eyes have a clearer perception than others.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Zebra
Skeptic Friend
USA
354 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 20:22:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by bngbuck
At one point, I asked him if he considered conjurer's illusions to be "reality" in the normal sense of the word. He answered with a question to me, "Do you consider a rainbow to be real?" I responded simply, "yes". His response was, "So do I!" Make what you will of it. |
What a conjurer does, he does within the confines of reality. It is an illusion, a trick, by any objective standards, but the target may percieve it as real. From a personal, egocentric point of view, it could be considered real by the target.
|
Originally posted by filthy
In the eye of the beholder, then? I've always thought so with the caveat that some eyes have a clearer perception than others.
|
"Perception is reality"??
Reality is in the eye of the beholder??
That would make the Christian God "real", in the eyes of many.
...I can't buy it.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 20:48:31 [Permalink]
|
There are two kinds of "reality." The internal, mental one--or subjective reality. Then there is the external, objective reality which is independent of minds. This latter reality is what most people usually mean when they use the word. It the reality which Philip K. Dick described as existing even when you stop believing in it. Harry Potter isn't said to be "real" even though he exists in the minds of millions of fans.
Religious apologists love conflating the two. They describe god as being a part of external reality, but defend him as if he is merely a part of internal reality. That's why they make bad analogies like god being comparable to love--something you can't prove but know exists anyway. This is a serious category error. Love is subjective. It's a personal emotion which exists only within our heads. God (as presented by theists, anyway), isn't supposed to be limited to a feeling in our brains. He's described as really existing in external reality, and would presumably go on existing even if humans became extinct (unlike Harry Potter). Human perception has no affect on this type of reality, which is totally independent of us.
On the topic of magic tricks, it is clear that illusions exist only within our brains. They are part of our internal, subjective reality; not external, objective reality. In our minds we may think we have just seen a woman sawed in half, but in external reality no such thing occurred. It was actually a trick performed by two women artfully concealed.
So it is important to treat subjective and objective realities as very distinct from one another. Is the Christian god more real than Harry Potter? No, which is why apologists go to such lengths to blur the definition of "real."
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/23/2009 20:49:24 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 22:03:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
"Perception is reality"??
Reality is in the eye of the beholder??
That would make the Christian God "real", in the eyes of many. |
...and that's the problem with absolute trust in your senses and emotions, just like so many Christians do.
Neither can I. That's why I trust in science to tell me about reality.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2009 : 22:16:55 [Permalink]
|
Zebra.....
That's because you have put too high a price on it. I have stated several times in this thread that I did not equate the phenomenon of perception with reality. Perception defines the aspect of reality that the perception encompasses. When you see an illusion, it is a real illusion. You have perceived, or experienced, a real happening. That, in no way, says that what you have seen is all of the phenomenon under scrutiny. When the illusion is explained (or you figure it out) you then see or understand more of the phenomenon.
"Reality is in the eye of the beholder??" Probably much of the reality of the beheld illusion is inside the "eye" (brain) of the beholder. Some of the reality of the beheld illusion may be external to the sense organs of the beholder and be the stimulus that causes those sense organs to inform the brain of a perception. The brain takes over and may enlarge or alter that perception. The result is the perception of (in this case) an illusion | That would make the Christian God "real", in the eyes of many. |
The Christian God (and many others, all if you like,) is an illusion.
Illusion is defined above, and earlier in this thread.
Reality, in both Dave's definition and mine, is in the eyes of all beholders, in differing degrees. Not all perceive exactly the same aspects of that reality, some more, some less.
The fact that God is "real" (It exists) in the eyes of many deluded folks, does not in any way speak to the truth (complete reality) of that perception.
The complete reality of any phenomenon or process exists irrespective of whether or not it is perceived or imagined.
Does any of this offer you a credit line on your purchase? It in no way denies the truism, "That which I perceive is reality" Only you just may not perceive the complete reality of what you observe!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Reality
