Do You Have a Thinking Problem? by canttakesky

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Do You Have a Thinking Problem?

POSTED BY: CANTTAKESKY
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 13:27
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6839
PAGE 4 of 4

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 1:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
A postulate isn't a faith, it's an idea that you try and prove, if you can't prove it the idea is accepted as wrong, or most likely wrong.

A postulate is an axiom. You do not test or prove a postulate. They are assumptions whose truth is essentially taken on faith or assumed to be evident. They are not proven, right or wrong, simply accepted.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 2:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
A postulate is an axiom. You do not test or prove a postulate. They are assumptions whose truth is essentially taken on faith or assumed to be evident. They are not proven, right or wrong, simply accepted.

Unless an axiom leads to contradictory results. That is one common way to disprove an axiom /a priori assumption /postulate.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 2:14 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It’s probably true that you do put the threshold out much further then I do for certain things, but I think it is also true that you do not apply it objectively.

Objectivity and accuracy are not the same things. Objectivity is simply limiting one's assessments to what is observably real. One needn't engage in the classical scientific method to be objective in one's thinking, one need only be aware of one's perceptual perameters and submit one's findings to logic.

Casually observed, the Earth looks flat. A child deciding that the world is a vast and flat place is being objective up to a point. With a little more information, a refinement of her observations and the application of logic, the child can come to an understanding that the world is more likely spherical. Both observations are objective.

My perceptions extend beyond what you consider perceptible, Finn. My perception, therefore, extends beyond what you consider real. If my senses are accurate, I am able to see and experience matters which most people in our culture either believe to be utterly private and hidden or supernatural and unknowable.

Science has a long history of labelling data that suggest realities or patterns outside the accepted norms as "anomalous." The only way for my perceptions at this late date to prove false is if every instance of telepathy and precognition I've experienced or observed over a life-time was the result of pure luck, confusion or lying--thousands of instances. The "spirits" and "demons" I have interacted with and observed interacting with others (in the latter case, to the point of very tangible, physical injury) would all have to be delusion and error; halucination, confusion and flat out lies.

But I've checked myself out, checked with professionals, and I ain't crazy (over much). Many of the people with whom I've shared these experiences over the years have demonstrated themselves to be trustworthy, solid citizens in every respect. The thousands of instances I've observed over a life-time certainly constitute a "preponderance of evidence" from many people's standpoint other than mine.

I know many people who are sensitive to the same realities as I am. So-called extra-sensory perception has nothing to do with religion, btw. These people I know are Christian, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, Native American Shamanistic, Taoist, Wiccan, and Other. None of 'em are particularly mainstream thinkers. Knowing what we know, how could we be?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 4:07 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Wow, look at all the new posts since I've been gone. Sorry it took me so long, but moving back from another country took a lot more than I thought. Turns out I am also moving to another house at the end of this month, so I might be scarce for a while longer. Incidentally, God bless potable tap water!! I so missed the States. Woohoo.

I don't have a lot of time anymore, what with all this moving. But I wanted to post at least a couple of quick responses to Rue and SignyM.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
FAITH is what exists in the absence of proof.

Assumption is also defined as a statement made in the absence of proof. And yet, assumption is not the enemy of rational thought. The definition of "absence of proof" alone does not makes something irrational.

Rue, imagine your favorite politician. Say you have "faith" in him, that he will do the right thing and solve the right problems when he gets the chance. Does having faith in that person somehow negate all rational thought or make you seek less scientific explanations for the world around you? I would guess most people would say, no, and that they can have "faith" in a person AND be rational and scientific at the same time. Again, my point is faith and rational thought are not ALWAYS competitive or mutually exclusive.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, aiming for more precision and description, how is your reality different from your deity? (You use two words so I assume you're trying to describe two different things.)

Let's say my religion is a philosophy based on a set of ASSUMPTIONS, which I find useful for my personal growth. I do not see these assumptions as fact or truth, and I have no desire to share them or see them embraced by anyone else--i.e. no need whatsoever to make converts.

My assumptions include:
1. A conscious, intelligent entity that is behind the creation of the universe as we know it.
2. This entity is not an anthropomorphic "person" or deity as such. Gandhi liked to think that the ultimate reality (which he called "God")in the universe was Truth. I like to conceptualize this ultimate reality, "God," as Awareness. It is related to Truth, just got a more Buddhist flavor to it.
3. I "talk" or reach out to my "God of Awareness." In my meditations or prayer, I get sensations (such as Rue said, awe and trust amongst others) and inspiration. Maybe I'm completely deluded, but maybe I'm not. Either way, I'm not hurting anyone, I'm not preaching to anyone that I've got some ultimate truth, so why not find inspiration wherever I want to?

If religion were ice cream, I've concocted my own flavor (made up of a catholic cone, filled with Buddhist, Hinduist, and Taoist swirls). I don't really care if no one else likes my ice cream flavor. To each his own. I just don't want to be called irrational simply because I like ice cream, and I like this flavor ice cream. You see? So when someone says, ice cream is the enemy of rational thought, I just have to speak up and protest that a statement like that is insulting to those of us who like ice cream. C'mon--really, they are not mutually exclusive.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 4:29 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, you're just supposed to TRUST in god b/c even if it seems effed up to you, god is perfect and it's all good. Remember, Jesus loves little children. And, btw, don't you DARE question god again. OK? Now go in peace my child, and never question again, or you'll go to hell.

So that to me is how 'faith' is defined. As what you believe specifically when there is no proof.

I sympathize with you on this Rue. I used to be a fundie (I was young), as I've mentioned, and I couldn't STAND this sort of attitude either. I can understand why you have so little respect for people of faith if this is all you've encountered.

Eventually I found Christians (including Catholics) who relish in questioning and challenging their faith. Have you ever talked to Jesuits? There are people who like asking the questions you asked and seeking answers and possibilities, including one in which God doesn't exist. But theology is a different discussion altogether.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 6, 2006 4:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey CTS,

I'm not going to reply right now as I understand your time is short. Just - welcome back on board!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 6:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, yes, liking ice cream IS irrational! It's bad for you. Too bad it tastes so good and sets off a flood of "reward" neurotransmitters like dopamine. It's easy to get hooked on the stuff, that's why people (women in particular) are portrayed as making a date with their two favorite men (Ben and Jerry) when things turn sour in their lives.

So, if you need ice cream in your life to keep yourself on an even keel... As my sis says: "Whatever floats your boat"

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 8:26 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Well, yes, liking ice cream IS irrational! It's bad for you. Too bad it tastes so good and sets off a flood of "reward" neurotransmitters like dopamine. It's easy to get hooked on the stuff, that's why people (women in particular) are portrayed as making a date with their two favorite men (Ben and Jerry) when things turn sour in their lives.

So, if you need ice cream in your life to keep yourself on an even keel... As my sis says: "Whatever floats your boat"

C'mon, that was easy. And unfair. For serious, Signy, you gotta mean streak when it comes to the religionists, ya know that?

You and I and, well, just about everyone reading this know that CTS did not intend her analogy to go as far as you took it. (FYI: You're winning the argument! Be gracious. You don't need to resort to this kind of cheap shot.)

And if you weren't the SignyM I've come to know and respect over the years on this site, I'd say it was not a little sexist to boot. It reads that way, Signy. "Particularly women?" You know that CTS is a female, yeah? Would you be saying that women are more irrational than men? That women are more in need of irrational, self-destructive habits to keep them "on an even keel?" Or would that be misunderstanding you? Taking your remarks a little too far, in order to score against you? How's it feel?

This is a tough topic to discuss, am I right? There is nothing harder than coming into a mature understanding of one's own spiritual identity. How is a person supposed to steer their own course with this Scilla of scientific materialism telling us night and day that we're MORONS and IDIOTS and IRRATIONAL for even imagining that there's a spiritual dimension to reality, and this Charybdis of Judeo-Christian tradition coming down to many of us through our own blood that God the Father hates you if you don't experience your spirituality according to a dang book full of lies and sexism and racism and every other objectionable way of thinking humans have come up with?

And I assume you do wish to discuss it. The topic itself surely holds some interest for you, there must be something about it that is not completely and laughably dismissable to you or you wouldn't spend so much time on it.

So Signy, what is it? What is it about spirituality that you don't dismiss out of hand?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:20 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I know I'm not part of this discussion, but I wanted to weigh in.

I had a revelation in another thread which had to do with economics. And that is that the supporters of 'capitalism at any cost' think of people as entirely one-dimensional. If it isn't a profit, it's not a reward. And people won't work for it. Say 'so long' to trust, peace cooperation, equality, love, accomplishment, regard - and every other non-monetary good thing that makes life worthwhile. Because, after all, they are 'invaluable'.

I think there is the possibility of 'spirituality' without a god. And maybe it even exists without spiritual beings. Perhaps it encompasses those good, non-monetary things listed above. In other words, perhaps there is spirituality IN US, as humans.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I didn't mean to sound ungracious, dismissive, or sexist altho on second (third, fourth and fifth!) reading it sure sounds that way. Sincere apologies about that! I was in a terrible hurry and didn't phrase my reply in the way that I- or pretty much anyone else- would like.

Truthfully, I don't know "spiritual". I can understand being at peace with oneself. I think I know what it means to be empathetic. I appreciate insight about topics that are truly subjective -like happiness, goodness, justice- as well as systematic enquiry into the observable. (Of course, that doesn't mean I've achieved any of the above. I merely know what these categories mean.) But "spiritual"? (throws up hands).

Quote:
So Signy, what is it? What is it about spirituality that you don't dismiss out of hand?

The phrasing is interesting. Out of context this question could be also be read "Is there anything about spirituality that you DON'T dismiss out of hand?"

But, to answer your question the way I think you intend- I suppose (sheepishly admits) that my conversion to the dark side was a result of an entirely subjective experience as well. I was raised RC and was very comfortable with my religion until that fateful day when my 9 y/o brain chemistry rearranged itself and the underlying feeling of being cared suddenly disappeared. I realized in an instant there was no foundation for any of it... the "anti-Santa Claus moment". I spent the next couple of years of my life recapitulating (more or less on my own) recent Western philosophy from Kant thru subjectivism, existentialism etc until I finally settled on the ASSUMPTION (and this was truly a choice) to behave AS IF the observable was "real". (That assumption is unproveable.) I had more or less unknowingly settled on the same a priori assumption of science.

If someone asks me what I think about religion I will take them thru the same reasoning that I went thru - but hopefully w/o the consuming angst.

EDITED TO ADD: In light of that, perhaps my signature makes more sense?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:51 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You are an interesting person.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 13, 2006 3:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hmmm... well, I suppose in retrospect one could say I came close to a psychotic break. (Some might say I went a bit farther than that :wrysmile:) But the interesting thing is that I find you all so much more interesting than me!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, September 15, 2006 2:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not a psychotic break. Childhood depression, which apparently is endogenous and has little to do w/ upbringing or circumstances. It makes sense that a secure child would suddenly feel the world was hollow.

The interesting part is that you put so much sustained high-level thought into framing your response. That's amazing for a 'little' kid.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 12:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I was testing the limits of what was proveable and real. Turns out, nothing is "proveable"

"I'm thinking this, I must be real" (Kant)
"But, what if this is all a dream?" (subjectivism)
"Even worse, what if this is someone else's dream?" (Berkley)
"This all depends on what I decide. It's total freedom. " (Sartre)
"But since I don't have the nerve to test what is 'real' by stepping in front of a truck, I'm going to decide that my perceptions are indeed reflecting a reality outside of myself" (objectivism)

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Dang !

I blew by all of that pretty quickly when I went through it (though without too much angst). It went something like - Is this real? I don't know. Am I willing to test it (by jumping off the roof)? No. Does it matter? Not to me. Well, OK then. I will go along acting as if it's real until proven otherwise ... :lazy eyes:

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE