ALL you need for my proposition to be true, is that in reality there is a difference between "learning" and "making shit up"


"
"
Well actually what we love in every day life in a way is fiction. We don't love our father, our brothers for what and who they really are (biological being with hereditary relations to us, nothing more or less in a cold straight forward perspective that you cherrish), we can't fully know them, we love a representation of them, an idealisation, a idea we have in our mind regarding who they are, impacted by the story, its happy moments, traumatisms, that we share.
Our relation to others is like our relation to public figures with more or less intensity, a more or less dense story, between us. People who love Trump for example (or any political figure really, just the perfect example) love a representation of the real trump in all its "complexity", through the story Trump which is incomplete and boggus and makes the Trump people love in fact a fictionnal character. Are we all crazy ?""


its may be the case that this realization is difficult for most of us to make, that "wait a minute I am not only making direct observations of epople in my thoughts but storytelling with good guys bad guys who is valuable even the story of the character called myself and their limitations desires wishes hopes"

it IS possible to transform your thought process for which you eliminate the fictional storytelling ( best you can) eliminating false constructs




for example there is a situation i could tell myself " this person is being selfish, (enemy image) of them then immediately feel deep powerful angry emotions from what i told myself.


but instead i could make an observation from realities pint of view " this person went about doing things to meet their needs at the expense of the needs of others" in this thought i describes what actually took place and i can see the problem is with how they did things, not that they are a "bad" person not that have "evil" intent.

this is the beginning of a transformation of living life for which you differentiate fiction from not fiction. which leads to more compassion more accurate description of others actions , a clearer picture of reality.

how gods souls afterlives fit into this is actually a tiny fragment


few people live this way and have the knowledge of this there is nothing more important to share

 

Bad, good, identy all of that are constructions (like the scientific language), you really aren't learning me much, it's pretty much what I've defended all along.
But the question is why on non scientific bases do you want to get rid of them ? Nothing in science suggests that giving meaning to the world, our environement is "bad" (science as you remind it doesn't care for morality).
You want people to evacuate any non scientific view from how they evaluate their environement, take their decision, but yourself make this proposition with no rational basis to it, science works without it, in fact science probably was made possible by our tendancy to categorize the world and give it meaning...Isn't this ironic ?
The scientist dystopia to come, will probably come from this tendancy.
It's an ideology that probably will bring the opposite of peace on earth, some kind of totalitarian regime where feelings, emotions are forbidden.
For example for family : isn't fthe fiction surrounding family, the stories we build around familly, why we love each other, stand by each other, isn't this fiction a good thing for us all ,as family is the basic block for every known human societies from day one ?

 

Last edited: Apr 21, 2017

For everyone interested, this post is to refute Talmis critique of the challenge given in this topic. A challenge he ill founded rediculed and dismissed.

Talmis proposition that science is a language is not a common definition of the word. Science is rather a process. This process does not lead to foolproof statements about anything, certainly not about if reality ultimately exist or not. What science does is to evaluate what repetably works without the need for any specific person conducting the experiment. What science does then is provide a formula for what repetadly works, not for any situation, or within any circumstances but for a specific situation during certain cicumstances. Anyone that can follow the formula can verify its usefulness. This way of working leads to knowledge and progress about how to reach specific goals. This is why science is valid as a method now and also will be if use in the future.

OP never said that the challange in this topic will produce a result that will give you the answer if anything is ultimately real or not, God included. It usefulness lies in the potential to reveal a double standard concerning how a believer evaluates if characters are to be considered real (for them) or not. For this purpose the challenge is a formula and it works.

If you can or cannot see this is simply a question of your intellectual capacity and honesty.

What Talmi has been talking about has lots of merit and is very interesting within other discussions. But the fact is that the challenge presented works for anyone that agrees that he or she makes a distinction between fiction and non-fiction (regardless of whether Talmi personally makes this distinction or not). Most of us, including believers of God, do make such distinctions.

To conclude, Talmis talk about the limits of science has nothing to do with the usefullness of the challenge given in the topic.

 

I'm actually having a conversation that I brought with the person who initiated the challenge, he doesn't seem bothered.
Why the need to police civil debates ?

 

"'m actually having a conversation that I brought with the person who initiated the challenge, he doesn't seem bothered.
Why the need to police civil debates ?
"



farao is not policing, what he is saying in that comment is absolutely correct i couldn't word it better myself but it could also be worded in other ways , he states clearly

"What Talmi has been talking about has lots of merit and is very interesting within other discussions. But the fact is that the challenge presented works for anyone that agrees that he or she makes a distinction between fiction and non-fiction (regardless of whether Talmi personally makes this distinction or not). Most of us, including believers of God, do make such distinctions."


this is very important


"OP never said that the challenge in this topic will produce a result that will give you the answer if anything is ultimately real or not, God included. It usefulness lies in the potential to reveal a double standard concerning how a believer evaluates if characters are to be considered real (for them) or not. For this purpose the challenge is a formula and it works."


Talmi

you make a distinction between people you love that actually exist, and fictional characters in tv shows or movies that do not exist , this is the distinction.

 

Talmi if it is okay, i would like to zero in on my proposition instead of running away from it so to speak ,I like speaking with you IF you are interested.

this is what i would like to ask.

what variables about fictional characters, when evaluating the difference between actual people, (loved ones family and friends you have and value ) exist for you that allow you to come to a conclusion that fictional characters are fiction?

 

Last edited: Apr 21, 2017

"
this topic seems so useless just like the flat earth topic.

some topics you dont discuss in a forum nor with friends in the real world.

"

that just demonstrates that first you do not fathom the topic , or that you have any interest in it. ( if that's your choice great)
However it is the most important thing a human being could ever talk about since it directly applies to every moment they will ever be in forever and applies to everyone that ever existed or does exist.

 

Policing? I am not policing at all. On the contrary. I was having a discussing with you but you choose to not answer my questions anymore and said I had to disprove your propositions first. I have now showed exactly where and how you were wrong so others do not have to be sidetracked. You are hard to please. Is there anything I wrote in the last post you find wrong, I'll be glad to hear what it might be.

 

I have yet to see anyone give me an example of any possible moment for which the proposition would not apply to or be true to for any human being that ever existed or does now.

what this means say the thread was about audio engineering and a person is trying to learn how to do something but keeps failing they are trying to get advise to get a technique down. my proposition would apply to that situation. in fact any you can ever name it applies to .
this is because human beings cannot accidentally differentiate between fiction and not fiction. they have to use brain power on purpose. any example of misunderstanding is not being able to follow this process. any example of violence any example of being closed minded any example of being willfully ignorant any example of being a human in a moment.

 

It is not the same thing at all though. There are quite a lot of deep well thought proposals to be found here, together with patience and good will. No name calling, no foul mothing, just interesting talk about what is real and not real. It sure is of use to people that has not yet found a way to differentiate between these things.

 

You've simply repeated something that I have already proven to be false.
And I have been on topic all along, contrary to what you seem to think, but I ask the right questions. You don't need to talk to me at the third person, I'm a simple man.
I am indeed hard to please.

 

Dear please close this Lounge section. All the topics in it are useless. No matter about GOD made by idle loafers' brain or whatever. Please...

 

It does nothing of the sort.
You are making many assumptions in this statement.

 

"
Bad, good, identy all of that are constructions (like the scientific language), you really aren't learning me much, it's pretty much what I've defended all along.
But the question is why on non scientific bases do you want to get rid of them ? Nothing in science suggests that giving meaning to the world, our environement is "bad" (science as you remind it doesn't care for morality).
You want people to evacuate any non scientific view from how they evaluate their environement, take their decision, but yourself make this proposition with no rational basis to it, science works without it, in fact science probably was made possible by our tendancy to categorize the world and give it meaning...Isn't this ironic ?
The scientist dystopia to come, will probably come from this tendancy.
It's an ideology that probably will bring the opposite of peace on earth, some kind of totalitarian regime where feelings, emotions are forbidden.
For example for family : isn't fthe fiction surrounding family, the stories we build around familly, why we love each other, stand by each other, isn't this fiction a good thing for us all ,as family is the basic block for every known human societies from day one ?"





"But the question is why on non scientific bases do you want to get rid of them ?"


i dont know what you are asking here





"Nothing in science suggests that giving meaning to the world, our environement is "bad""

what does "meaning" MEAN to you?





"(science as you remind it doesn't care for morality)."


I can demonstrate this is false , Morality is the interaction of human beings such that a society is even possible ( if we interacted with others besides our family and friends in a harmful violent way for example a society would not get to a certain size)

next, the human body and brain works a specific way in reality that we have no ability to change (objective) regarding what is helpful and harmful in the areas of physical, emotional, psychological.

putting it together.

in reality "Morality" means the interaction of human beings such that a society is possible in reality based on the way human beings actually work objectively.
second, what is helpful and what is harmful is determined by how the body and brain works in the areas of physical, emotional , and psychological

conclusion in our world and society it is secular laws and secular police force courts and criminal justice system entirely dealing with morality. this is because morality is ONLY a scientific question with scientific answers. this is based on the reality of how the human being actually works, what is actually helpful and what is actually harmful regarding human interactions in a large society where groups are larger than family and friends of pre-historic times and hunter gatherer clans and tribes.







"You want people to evacuate any non scientific view from how they evaluate their environement,"

i never said this never implied it never advocated it, this is entirely fabricated as fiction in your own thoughts for which you never evaluated to see if the content was fiction or not fiction.






"take their decision, but yourself make this proposition with no rational basis to it, science works without it,"


how does science work without distinguishing between fiction and not fiction? it doe sthe very OPPOSITE!



yes there is a rational basis for it i explained what hat was maybe you didnt read or fathom it but again, you here are having a thought for which you did not evaluate to see if it is fiction or not whether there is a rational basis .







"in fact science probably was made possible by our tendancy to categorize the world and give it meaning...Isn't this ironic ?"

what is ironic is you saying that "categorizing" and giving "meaning " is somehow different than my entire proposition.






"
The scientist dystopia to come, will probably come from this tendancy.
It's an ideology that probably will bring the opposite of peace on earth, some kind of totalitarian regime where feelings, emotions are forbidden."



i dont know what this means but i will try to be more clear as you have demonstrated that you have made assumptions about how feelings and emotions play a part in my proposition. that is to say here is another example for which you told a fictional story about me, my position, my proposition, instead of saying " i dont know" you made up assumptions and had expectations you turned into a fictional story with no care how accurate it was in reality.


now i will proceed to explain how feelings and emotions play a integral part in my proposition kind sir.

human beings feelings and emotions come as a result of what they tell themselves about a situation,

it is possible to have feelings and emotions of the highest intensity from a mistakenly fictional storytelling in thought of an account that is taking place.

my proposition of distinguishing between fiction and not, means the feelings you have from a correct account of reality, will be real feelings about the situation.

However is no distinction is made between fiction and not fiction. the person will make up a false story and have deep powerful feelings and emotions that are fiction themselves. this is what makes our experience virtual.





"For example for family : isn't fthe fiction surrounding family, the stories we build around familly, why we love each other, stand by each other, isn't this fiction a good thing for us all ,as family is the basic block for every known human societies from day one ?""


we love people than we demonstrably show through our actions of respect, honor, dignity, the more we think of family in a way that matches what they actually are things will go well, However if there is fiction involved we will have all kinds of false but powerful emotions and feelings that lead to misunderstandings arguments and violence.

 

"
It is not the same thing at all though. There are quite a lot of deep well thought proposals to be found here, together with patience and good will. No name calling, no foul mothing, just interesting talk about what is real and not real. It sure is of use to people that has not yet found a way to differentiate between these things.
but i guess nobody will read 16+ pages? at least i had no patience to do so ...
"



"
but i guess nobody will read 16+ pages? at least i had no patience to do so ...
""

Articstorm , that is why you dont know what we have been talking about in which specific context.


because you didnt read it when you put a third option in the poll, against my will the person that started the thread , you were trying to force the topic to be about something different than it is.
all because you were not interested in seeing what the topic IS about.

then when you say it is pointless , you are saying what you made up in your head about the topic is pointless , when that is actually not the topic at all. so i do agree what you made up in your head that it was all about because you didn't want to read it and see, THAT IS pointless

this whole thing you did is the point of this thread.

 

Last edited: Apr 21, 2017

Well, I have clearly showed where you were wrong in your complicated critique of the challenge so it is easy for others to see that the challenge really have the value it states. You not being able or wanting to refute that post in an understandable and coherent way is telling enough really.

(You are mentioned in third person only because you have chosen to no longer take part of the discussion. Not out of any disrespect. Your critic was so not on point and got complicated to follow so I adressed others so they can see where I think the flaws in your thinking are.)

 

MMJ I'm not meaning to be offensive whatsoever but one reason I personally don't give much credit is that every time you seem to faced with a concept you are unsure about you appear to simply state "I don't Know what you are asking here" and swiftly move on. One of the first things I asked about was your position with regards to explaining singularities in Science?

An example, consider possibly the most widespread example -

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

If you quote with certainty that science is "absolute" in its totality and very real description of the universe then how can you possibly hope to use those same laws to accurately describe those areas whereby the very laws that science creates cease to operate?

Does that itself not take a degree of faith?

or put more simply and not badly worded lol - When the very laws that science creates break down, does it not then take a certain degree of faith, "fiction" or "Story-Telling" to keep using them as absolute and certain?

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017