What actually do JREF religious believers believe?

[punshhh]

You have experienced what exists outside of human thought, mythology, concepts and understanding?

Yes, I can touch what exists with my hand, hear with my ears, see it with my eyes, feel it as the sensations of my body. Travel through it by walking etc. I am intimately acquainted with what exists, every moment of the day, I can't help but be fully immersed in it.

All this and yet my mind, human mythology, knowledge and understanding can't tell me what it is I am experiencing. Only how it appears to be through the prism of human consciousness. This appearance is well documented through science for example. One should bare in mind that this is only one narrow perspective on existence finely tuned through evolution for primate survival in a earth ecosystem and nothing else.

The reality, due to our limitations, is likely unimaginable and inconceivable and yet ever present, as there is nothing else.

 

[eight bits]

punshhh

If I might ask, in a nonconfrontational way, since it is the thread topic:

One should bare in mind that this is only one narrow perspective on existence finely tuned through evolution for primate survival in a earth ecosystem and nothing else.

Is it your view, then, that multiple broad perspectives did not arise through evolution by natural selection, or that these other perspectives are inimical to primate survival on Earth?

The reality, due to our limitations, is likely unimaginable and inconceivable and yet ever present, as there is nothing else.

Did you mean to write something else? It seems to me that you both imagined and conceived the reality which you called likely unimaginable and inconceivable.

I am also confused whether it's the perspectives that are multiple, or the realities. If there is only one reality, and one perspective, primates', is "finely tuned through evolution," then haven't I not only imagined and conceived the reality, but finely perceived and partially understood it as well?

 

[punshhh]

punshhh

If I might ask, in a nonconfrontational way, since it is the thread topic:



Is it your view, then, that multiple broad perspectives did not arise through evolution by natural selection, or that these other perspectives are inimical to primate survival on Earth?

No perspectives evolved to detect, or perceive and exploit aspects of existence, only aspects of a physical environment so as to secure survival of a life form.

Did you mean to write something else? It seems to me that you both imagined and conceived the reality which you called likely unimaginable and inconceivable.

No I haven't imagined or conceived this reality. But in some ways I have accepted its presence and developed my own ways of representing it.

I am also confused whether it's the perspectives that are multiple, or the realities. If there is only one reality, and one perspective, primates', is "finely tuned through evolution," then haven't I not only imagined and conceived the reality, but finely perceived and partially understood it as well?

I am referring to one reality (although there may be others), there would presumably be many perspectives on something.

Yes you have perceived, conceived, and partially understood it through inhabiting a human body. But what it is is coloured by the evolutionary circumstances and prism of human consciousness. Which may be distorted, deluded, abstracted, inside out and back to front, fictitious, imaginary, a construct etc etc. And we may not know or be capable of understanding the situation.

 

[eight bits]

But what it is is coloured by the evolutionary circumstances and prism of human consciousness. Which may be distorted, deluded, abstracted, inside out and back to front, fictitious, imaginary, a construct etc etc. And we may not know or be capable of understanding the situation.

Yes, it may be. Is there any reason to think that it is?

For example, is there some fitness advantage to getting the nature of reality systematically wrong?

When you said

No perspectives evolved to detect, or perceive and exploit aspects of existence, only aspects of a physical environment so as to secure survival of a life form.

That's just incompleteness, and I think it is clear that my perception furnishes an incomplete picture of the world, less complete even than would be handy to secure my survival. But maybe the marginal cost of the additional information isn't covered by the benefit of having it.

But "distorted, deluded, ..., inside out and back to front, fictitious, ..." would be getting the world wrong, systematically wrong.

That would seem to be an odd strategy to pay off.

I am unsure how we could close the gap on this, since you haven't imagined or conceived the missing part of reality (if I understood what you wrote).

You don't suppose it's just "NTK" (nice to know), meaning true, but not especially important? Like Carl Yastremski's season batting average in 1967. It was .326, or so I am told and that's probably right, too. But nothing depends on my knowing it, or if I think I know it and I'm wrong.

 

[dafydd]

Explain? You don't think I would come to the table without having thought through all the permutations of the argument do you?

I could think that very easily.

 

[tsig]

No perspectives evolved to detect, or perceive and exploit aspects of existence, only aspects of a physical environment so as to secure survival of a life form.



No I haven't imagined or conceived this reality. But in some ways I have accepted its presence and developed my own ways of representing it.

I am referring to one reality (although there may be others), there would presumably be many perspectives on something.

Yes you have perceived, conceived, and partially understood it through inhabiting a human body. But what it is is coloured by the evolutionary circumstances and prism of human consciousness. Which may be distorted, deluded, abstracted, inside out and back to front, fictitious, imaginary, a construct etc etc. And we may not know or be capable of understanding the situation.

Since we may not know or be capable of understanding the situation how can you know that which may be distorted, deluded, abstracted, inside out and back to front, fictitious, imaginary, a construct etc etc.


You continually tell us how limited and primitive the human intellect is then tell us that you, with the same intellect, can perceive the situation as imaginary and deluded.

 

[dafydd]

You continually tell us how limited and primitive the human intellect is then tell us that you, with the same intellect, can perceive the situation as imaginary and deluded.

I've often wondered how he does that.

 

[Donn]

Is being punshhh-drunk a thing?

 

[tsig]

Is being punshhh-drunk a thing?

Possibly an explanation.

 

[punshhh]

Since we may not know or be capable of understanding the situation how can you know that which may be distorted, deluded, abstracted, inside out and back to front, fictitious, imaginary, a construct etc etc.

I can't, I realise the situation and open my mind. Which frees me from the conditioning which confines me to only considering existence to be what is written in the physics text books and the like.

You continually tell us how limited and primitive the human intellect is then tell us that you, with the same intellect, can perceive the situation as imaginary and deluded.

You've made a mistake there, I haven't told you that the human intellect is primitive, only that it has not evolved to deal with what exists, which is self evident. Secondly I haven't told you that I know with that evolutionary legacy that our world is imaginary or deluded. Rather that we see reality through rose tinted glasses, again this is self evident, just read some books on anthropology.

 

[punshhh]

I've often wondered how he does that.

I didn't do it, that was your interpretation.

 

[punshhh]

Is being punshhh-drunk a thing?

Help!

Give me some of your prose or subtle wit Donn, otherwise I fear I'll fall of the wagon and drown my sorrows through the prism of a bottle.

 

[punshhh]

Yes, it may be. Is there any reason to think that it is?

Only that all human endeavor has failed to equip us to answer questions about existence, even logic fails us. Of course it matters not in the course of every day life.

For example, is there some fitness advantage to getting the nature of reality systematically wrong?

Yes there may be, if we evolved to perceive minutiae of the foundation of our existence, it may become a distraction in the fight for survival. As it is of no value in evolutionary terms the forces of evolution would select against it.

That's just incompleteness, and I think it is clear that my perception furnishes an incomplete picture of the world, less complete even than would be handy to secure my survival. But maybe the marginal cost of the additional information isn't covered by the benefit of having it.

Agreed.

But "distorted, deluded, ..., inside out and back to front, fictitious, ..." would be getting the world wrong, systematically wrong.

I am referring the an underlying nature to existence, beneath the surface of our perceived existence. So we would not be getting the perceived world wrong, only it may bare no relation to the fundamental activity beneath.

That would seem to be an odd strategy to pay off.

As I said the underlying reality of our existence is unimportant, provided it is consistent and persists for a sufficient period.

I am unsure how we could close the gap on this, since you haven't imagined or conceived the missing part of reality (if I understood what you wrote).

I don't see a way to close it either. Or more to the point, why would it be necessary? My interest is in the reality of the situation, rather than explaining it.

You don't suppose it's just "NTK" (nice to know), meaning true, but not especially important? Like Carl Yastremski's season batting average in 1967. It was .326, or so I am told and that's probably right, too. But nothing depends on my knowing it, or if I think I know it and I'm wrong.

Yes, but I am by nature a truth seeker and will leave no stone unturned.

 

[eight bits]

punshhh

Ok, then, I understand better now, I was confused before. Thank you for your replies, and best wishes in your search.

 

[dafydd]

I am referring the an underlying nature to existence, beneath the surface of our perceived existence. .

How do you know that this underlying nature is there? What does that even mean?

 

[tsig]

Only that all human endeavor has failed to equip us to answer questions about existence, even logic fails us. Of course it matters not in the course of every day life.

Yes there may be, if we evolved to perceive minutiae of the foundation of our existence, it may become a distraction in the fight for survival. As it is of no value in evolutionary terms the forces of evolution would select against it.

Agreed.

I am referring the an underlying nature to existence, beneath the surface of our perceived existence. So we would not be getting the perceived world wrong, only it may bare no relation to the fundamental activity beneath.

As I said the underlying reality of our existence is unimportant, provided it is consistent and persists for a sufficient period.

I don't see a way to close it either. Or more to the point, why would it be necessary? My interest is in the reality of the situation, rather than explaining it.

Yes, but I am by nature a truth seeker and will leave no stone unturned.

The truth is you're a human, born of woman, bound to die and all of your twisting wit won't change a bit of it.

 

[punshhh]

How do you know that this underlying nature is there? What does that even mean?

There must be something there? Or how can we exist at all?

 

[punshhh]

The truth is you're a human, born of woman, bound to die and all of your twisting wit won't change a bit of it.

Yes thats fine, I am happy to make my small contribution to making the world a better place.

 

[Mashuna]

Yes thats fine, I am happy to make my small contribution to making the world a better place.

Better in reality, or better in your own perception?

 

[SusanB-M1]

There must be something there? Or how can we exist at all?

You could be searching for this x factor for the rest of your life, but you'll be chasing a shadow which always moves further away from you because it's an illusion. Enjoy imagining it, learning what others think about it, but don't expect ever to find a definitive answer! Do you wonder why such an answer isn't available already?