Philosothread: Metaphysics of Reality

[Suukorak 354]

Hey everyone!

Just yesterday (when I joined this site, actually! Yay for muffins!) I found a topic about "what happens after you die," and I made a huge rambling post about my metaphysical thoughts. Most of the discussion had become people talking either about religion or decomposition, so I thought maybe we need a more philosophical approach.

But philosophy thrives on general questions, so I have generalized it as I felt was natural. The question is: what is the nature of reality?   Is it "really" there, or in our head, or something else? Can we ever agree on an objective reality? etc. 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing what you all have to say. I'll put my own thoughts in the next post, since this is getting pretty long as it is. Happy philosophizing!

Okay, so here's my thoughts on the subject. I did copy/paste the first paragraph from my previous rambling, because I am content to sit back and contemplate my former eloquence on the subject.

 

I've been thinking about this often, and for some time now. Just my philosophical self, avoiding boredom. When I consider this question, the most important aspect I can think of is that we have a severe lack of experience with reality. Our minds and senses are pretty clearly imperfect, and with the very frustrating inability to exchange minds with someone else, we're pretty much stuck in our own flawed world. The important thing about this is that it means we have no reason to believe there's anything other than that world. The only thing that I am certain exists is my own experience. So, although I don't have anything to disprove an external reality, I don't really need it. It is not essential to my life or how I make sense of my world. Therefore, unless I can get some proof of reality, I don't believe in it.

This has some pretty alarming implications. The foremost is that, in denying any outside reality, I don't believe any of you exist - or, at least, I have no proof of it. It's very difficult to have more than one person existing in such a powerful relation to the world. All of you could easily be figments of my imagination, and things would seem the same. Of course, you all could probably say the same about me. It's a kind of a paradox, and one I choose to approach by treating everyone as existing the way I do. Maybe it's not completely sound, but it works pretty well.

The second implication is that we have more control than we think over reality. There's a lot of talk about how the world is shaped by your approach to it - like the Islamic Sufis saying that people create their own heaven or hell around them. In fact, some used to claim that they were God because they had control of the universe. Impossible (and blasphemous) as that may sound, it seems right to me. I have seen people create themselves a private hell because of their bad attitudes, and I try my best to make my own world a nice one.

Those are the immediate implications I can come up with.

Feel free to expand on my thinking, or explain your own thoughts. Also, if you have an idea for a different question, let me know!

[Aeros Sine 492]

I like your thought process! You seem to have thought about this a lot but if you haven't read about

Descartes http://www.eoht.info/page/Rene+Descartes

 

And Galileo http://www.eoht.info/page/Galileo+Galilei

 

Both were great philosophers and i think Descartes goes on death as well. Nice view though, i like seeing other views. Look at Galileo's quotes at the bottom in the link and you might be interested at what you find.

[Suukorak 354]

 

 

Look at Galileo's quotes at the bottom in the link and you might be interested at what you find.

I see that Galileo did believe in an external universe out of which he could try to read. That's a common approach from science to philosophy, I imagine.

I've read a bit of Descartes before, and I admit his famous "I think, therefore I am" influenced my ideas. However, he went from there to build up an external reality relying on the concept of a God, which I don't believe in. Therefore I separate from his theories almost directly after that famous saying.

Whatever the views of famous, dead men, I'm also interested in your own views. Even if they're not fully formed, I'd like to hear them. After all, we're still alive and we can influence each other in interesting ways. I didn't come here to spout my views, but to hear others'.  So thanks for the reference, but I'd still rather have your opinion.

[Aeros Sine 492]

Well...when i think about it, we have to ask ourselves a question. Is reality all part of this elaborate life we hold so dearly or are we still in a fantasy only just discovering the surface? This question might be contradicting and foolish but when it comes to terms like mathematics and science, humans have that state that renders us escaping this "reality". Our mind is the only captivity that borders the line between fantasy and reality therefore reality could be realistic but only to the viewer. Every viewer has  their own perspective and we know that the mind is limitless with thought given the symbols we created to describe nature. But can reality be part of the life that only happens when we are awake or...just stays in the vast space in our mind that continues to expand. For example, say if "reality" is in the form of a certain space and our mind is the container, empty without its lid. Whether or not it is in there, we may ever know since the space isn't filled. Again, i might be contradicting myself and made it more confusing but whether or not reality is in some shape or form of our senses, it somehow remains with us entirely, until we escapes into the darkness in our minds where there is no limit...

 

 

I hope this is okay as an explanation as it is my first philosophical entry in my life so I'd like to hear what you think about it. 

Edited March 18, 2015 by Aeros Sine

[Suukorak 354]

Fascinating. It's clearly an interesting idea. I'd like to hear more about reality being inside our minds in particular.

[Mysterious Grepper 89]

Philosophy can get confusing when we start asking questions such as "what is reality?" I am sort of sure that I exist, but how would you even define "existence"? Anything that is not just a figment of your imagination?

 

I don't believe that everything I experience is a figment of my imagination, even though there's no way to prove it. I make the assumption that our senses are generally reliable, enough to get a sense of the world around us. Keep in mind that there's no way to prove (that I'm aware of) that everything that happens in my your mind is a figment of the imagination.

[Aeros Sine 492]

 

 

Philosophy can get confusing when we start asking questions such as "what is reality?" I am sort of sure that I exist, but how would you even define "existence"? Anything that is not just a figment of your imagination?   I don't believe that everything I experience is a figment of my imagination, even though there's no way to prove it. I make the assumption that our senses are generally reliable, enough to get a sense of the world around us. Keep in mind that there's no way to prove (that I'm aware of) that everything that happens in my your mind is a figment of the imagination.

 

I like your point of view and you are right about not being able to prove it as we can't prove reality but speculate. But i really like your point about imagination. Our mind is a wonderful thing!

[Suukorak 354]

Philosophy can get confusing when we start asking questions such as "what is reality?" I am sort of sure that I exist, but how would you even define "existence"? Anything that is not just a figment of your imagination?

 

I don't believe that everything I experience is a figment of my imagination, even though there's no way to prove it. I make the assumption that our senses are generally reliable, enough to get a sense of the world around us. Keep in mind that there's no way to prove (that I'm aware of) that everything that happens in my your mind is a figment of the imagination.

Existence does seem hard to define, though I would most closely define it like this: "x exists" means the same thing as "I perceive x" (whether it's that you see it in front of you, or in memory, or think it, or feel that emotion). Thus, in a certain way, I can say "God does not exist," because I'm not religious and do not sense His presence. But someone else, who can "feel His love in [their] heart," would just as truthfully be able to say "God exists."

[Mysterious Grepper 89]

Here's an article that may be interesting to read, written from a scientific/naturalistic point of view.

[Admiral Regulus 2,769]

I don't buy into the "it's all in our heads" thing.

 

I have seen things that I never would have conceived of. It happens almost every day. The world inside my head *rarely* matches the external world, and that's how I know it's there.

 

Suppose you wake up and think, "I'm going to make a bowl of cereal." As it so happens, you walk into the kitchen and instead decide you're going to have oatmeal. In this case, you effectively changed from one state to another. *Something* must have induced this change. Therefore, something exists.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Admiral Regulus

[Suukorak 354]

I have seen things that I never would have conceived of. It happens almost every day. The world inside my head *rarely* matches the external world, and that's how I know it's there.

I'm sure we all do, but I'm not convinced that what we are aware of is everything that is in our heads.

Then again, if we're not aware of it, perhaps it shouldn't count as being in our heads. Perhaps the "subconscious" or such constructs are an external reality. Maybe a subjective reality, but external all the same. Fascinating thought.

This is why I like to talk to people about this. Such amazing things come up that I would have never imagined!

And I get to think over my whole philosophy again.

[Thunderchild 875]

Interesting discussion so far.

 

My personal standpoint on this would be something like: If the thing we are focused on is unchanged by our state of mind from one day to the next, it exists outside of our minds-and therefore can be relied upon to be constant.

 

When you begin to delve into subjective realities such as the existence or non-existence of God, or extra terrestrial  beings of any description, faith becomes more of a player- 'If this, then this'. These theories are lent credence by the real or perceived credibility of the originator of them, but should be approached as the theories they are, rather than the scientific fact they are sometimes portrayed as. An open mind is much more useful than one that is made up and closed.

[Suukorak 354]

My personal standpoint on this would be something like: If the thing we are focused on is unchanged by our state of mind from one day to the next, it exists outside of our minds-and therefore can be relied upon to be constant.

That's an interesting definition of an outside world, though I can't help see some places it could use elaboration. First of all, "state of mind" seems vague to me. Depending on the details of the definition, we can do some weird things with this. For example: if state of mind includes points of reference or units, then we can claim numbers are not part of the outside world. "Two cookies" is a lot more when you're full than when you're hungry, for instance. Now, perhaps it's right to do this. After all, mathematics seems very abstract and it wouldn't be such a surprise to claim that it's also in some way subjective.

Also, there's no guarantee that what seems constant through our states of mind is constant, or even perceptible, for others. Perhaps we haven't experienced the state of mind in which the thing changes.

I'll probably come up with more than this once I've thought about it for a while. Even for such a simple sentence, it's a complex idea when you try to break it down.

(Hopefully you understand - I'm not trying to shoot down your idea. I'm just trying to understand it. I don't want to come across as too critical.)

 

When you begin to delve into subjective realities such as the existence or non-existence of God, or extra terrestrial  beings of any description, faith becomes more of a player- 'If this, then this'. These theories are lent credence by the real or perceived credibility of the originator of them, but should be approached as the theories they are, rather than the scientific fact they are sometimes portrayed as. An open mind is much more useful than one that is made up and closed.

 

Yes, I agree with this. By defining "God" as the presence of an emotion, I have removed the whole issue from the realm of facts. Emotions can change, and anyone's statement about their feeling of God can coexist with any other statement, from other people or even from the same person over time. It seems to me a much better approach than the constant arguments we see between religion and science today.

[Thunderchild 875]

That's an interesting definition of an outside world, though I can't help see some places it could use elaboration. First of all, "state of mind" seems vague to me. Depending on the details of the definition, we can do some weird things with this. For example: if state of mind includes points of reference or units, then we can claim numbers are not part of the outside world. "Two cookies" is a lot more when you're full than when you're hungry, for instance. Now, perhaps it's right to do this. After all, mathematics seems very abstract and it wouldn't be such a surprise to claim that it's also in some way subjective.

 

I understand what you're saying, however you made my point for me with the cookie analogy.

 

2 cookies seem like a lot when you're full but not when you're hungry. Regardless of your perceptive standpoint, the cookies remain unchanged-therefore they are a constant. Numbers are the same as any other solid object, when they are used to define constants in the outside world. It's only when you get into subjects like theoretical physics that they become more subjective.

 

When you perceive an object as existing, I believe the litmus test for concluding it's existence would be the uninformed concurrence of a third party-someone unconnected making the same observance without any prior knowledge of your observations.

 

As far as religion and science go, there are many more similarities than either would be comfortable admitting. Atheism itself is a religion of sorts-it's definitely a system of belief. Once you've removed God as the source of all we see around us, you must now come up with another cause for it-which in and of itself is equally theoretical regardless of our postulating to the contrary, and in many ways requires a more fervent application of faith than religion.

 

And btw-please don't worry about coming across as critical. You're obviously someone who thinks about this stuff, and I don't want your thoughts to be edited in favor of being nice. I've danced this dance many times before, and I enjoy it. If you've got something, spill it.

[Aeros Sine 492]

Just adding to the discussion I've studied more and i have another theory or two.

 

The principle of reality being outside of our minds makes a valid point. Specifically is could be an extension of our own being listed as the outside world. Another theory is the "external sense". the sense of feeling coming from our mind and from the outside world have an impact on our perception. the internal sense is connected to the external sense thus constituting reality.

[Thunderchild 875]

Just adding to the discussion I've studied more and i have another theory or two.

 

The principle of reality being outside of our minds makes a valid point. Specifically is could be an extension of our own being listed as the outside world. Another theory is the "external sense". the sense of feeling coming from our mind and from the outside world have an impact on our perception. the internal sense is connected to the external sense thus constituting reality.

If that were the case though, the reality we experience wouldn't be constant across the board-everyone would experience a different form of it, which is why I stated the need for a third party, independent observation of the same thing you are seeing in order to conclude it's existence outside of our own perception.

[Suukorak 354]

 

 

-please don't worry about coming across as critical. You're obviously someone who thinks about this stuff, and I don't want your thoughts to be edited in favor of being nice. I've danced this dance many times before, and I enjoy it. If you've got something, spill it.

 

I was mostly worried that this would devolve from a discussion to an argument, but that doesn't seem likely given what I've seen so far. All right. No holds barred. That goes for me, too - anyone has something to say, don't worry about being nice. Be honest instead.

 

 

2 cookies seem like a lot when you're full but not when you're hungry. Regardless of your perceptive standpoint, the cookies remain unchanged-therefore they are a constant. Numbers are the same as any other solid object, when they are used to define constants in the outside world. It's only when you get into subjects like theoretical physics that they become more subjective.   When you perceive an object as existing, I believe the litmus test for concluding it's existence would be the uninformed concurrence of a third party-someone unconnected making the same observance without any prior knowledge of your observations.

My point was that the number 2 decreases in "value" as you get more hungry, but I see your point, too. No matter how full or hungry you are, you still recognize them as 2 cookies, not 1.5, or 8. The philosophy of math is weird. Your method is definitely a scientific-style approach to the problem, but it assumes that such a thing as a "third party" - something already in a reality external to you - exists. I'm going more for the Cartesian doubt: I assume nothing is externally real until I can prove otherwise. Which is hard to do. Philosophy isn't good at proofs.

Another point to bring up is, say, hallucination. Far less is constant for hallucinators, and far less can be confirmed by others. This causes a problem for your theory, because either their external reality has shrunk as they hallucinate, or there's something going on with filters between reality and the mind. If external reality shrinks when you're hallucinating, it's not constant under different states of mind, which makes the external reality internal (paradox!). If, on the other hand, there is some kind of filter between reality and the mind, then it becomes hard to prove what's in the filter and what's in reality. This filter doesn't necessarily change with states of mind, so we have yet another object to work around to get at reality.

 

 

As far as religion and science go, there are many more similarities than either would be comfortable admitting. Atheism itself is a religion of sorts-it's definitely a system of belief. Once you've removed God as the source of all we see around us, you must now come up with another cause for it-which in and of itself is equally theoretical regardless of our postulating to the contrary, and in many ways requires a more fervent application of faith than religion.

Hm, maybe so. I don't want this to become a religious debate, but I'll risk one comment. At least atheists aren't so fervently certain that they'll kill people about it. Or maybe I should say scientists instead of atheists. Well, moving on.

Another thing I like about my theory of religion is that there's no default (God ON or God OFF). Therefore, no one can be superior for having the more basic claim. It comes down to the fact that everyone's belief has the same status - an emotion, nothing "testable" or anything like that - and so there's really no reason to argue about it.

[twilight24 323]

Very interesting (: I think my world is a warped perception of reality that I believe and hold dear, whilst others see the world in their own way. Therefore reality is nothing more than some sensible things like we are alive and need oxygen, and your reality and mine are nothing alike. Now I mean not talking about going insane and killing people mentality, but in order for me to survive I live in fantasy, some ignorance, and warped senses. I'm not a philosopher. But there's my take on it

[Thunderchild 875]

 

My point was that the number 2 decreases in "value" as you get more hungry, but I see your point, too. No matter how full or hungry you are, you still recognize them as 2 cookies, not 1.5, or 8. The philosophy of math is weird. Your method is definitely a scientific-style approach to the problem, but it assumes that such a thing as a "third party" - something already in a reality external to you - exists. I'm going more for the Cartesian doubt: I assume nothing is externally real until I can prove otherwise. Which is hard to do. Philosophy isn't good at proofs.

Another point to bring up is, say, hallucination. Far less is constant for hallucinators, and far less can be confirmed by others. This causes a problem for your theory, because either their external reality has shrunk as they hallucinate, or there's something going on with filters between reality and the mind. If external reality shrinks when you're hallucinating, it's not constant under different states of mind, which makes the external reality internal (paradox!). If, on the other hand, there is some kind of filter between reality and the mind, then it becomes hard to prove what's in the filter and what's in reality. This filter doesn't necessarily change with states of mind, so we have yet another object to work around to get at reality.

 

Ah-so you're assuming that nothing is provably real outside of your own mind-hence the third party making the observation would be a part of the overall hallucination, and therefore not credible.

 

There is a name for this mindset-Solipsism syndrome. It isn't recognized by the APA as yet, but is something experienced by people in extended periods of isolation-astronauts for example. The problem with treating a disorder like this is similar to the one we're going to end up with in this discussion-namely that any empirical evidence that something exists can be waved away as a part of the hallucination-ergo the guy seeing the same stuff as you is really just a figment of your imagination. Shades of The Matrix.

 

 

 

Hm, maybe so. I don't want this to become a religious debate, but I'll risk one comment. At least atheists aren't so fervently certain that they'll kill people about it. Or maybe I should say scientists instead of atheists. Well, moving on. Another thing I like about my theory of religion is that there's no default (God ON or God OFF). Therefore, no one can be superior for having the more basic claim. It comes down to the fact that everyone's belief has the same status - an emotion, nothing "testable" or anything like that - and so there's really no reason to argue about it.

 

My feeling on religion has always remained constant. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, go for it. As soon as you allow it to direct you towards causing others who don't believe like you to suffer in any way, you have become anathema to the world. No-one has the answer beyond any doubt-and thus we should move forward, conscious of our own fallibility. 

[Suukorak 354]

Just adding to the discussion I've studied more and i have another theory or two.

 

The principle of reality being outside of our minds makes a valid point. Specifically is could be an extension of our own being listed as the outside world. Another theory is the "external sense". the sense of feeling coming from our mind and from the outside world have an impact on our perception. the internal sense is connected to the external sense thus constituting reality.

Yes, I can see this. I suppose, if I'm going to doubt the outside world, I have to trust my senses or I'm left with nothing. Then again, I'm not necessarily all that fond of the senses I have. They seem to be easily tricked, when I compare them to the outside world. Wait... I've just made myself a paradox of circular logic! The nonexistence of the outside world is now dependent on its existence! Oh dear...

 

Ah-so you're assuming that nothing is provably real outside of your own mind-hence the third party making the observation would be a part of the overall hallucination, and therefore not credible.

 

There is a name for this mindset-Solipsism syndrome. It isn't recognized by the APA as yet, but is something experienced by people in extended periods of isolation-astronauts for example. The problem with treating a disorder like this is similar to the one we're going to end up with in this discussion-namely that any empirical evidence that something exists can be waved away as a part of the hallucination-ergo the guy seeing the same stuff as you is really just a figment of your imagination. Shades of The Matrix.

Oh wow - my philosophy is a recognized Syndrome™. Also the Matrix. Creepy.

Jokes aside, I can see how I've made it kind of unfalsifiable. Of course, if philosophers can't wield untestable theories, who can? Thanks for pointing it out, though - it's a good point to consider, that I've made a kind of one-way valve of a theory. I'll have to approach it from outside and evaluate again.

My feeling on religion has always remained constant. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, go for it. As soon as you allow it to direct you towards causing others who don't believe like you to suffer in any way, you have become anathema to the world. No-one has the answer beyond any doubt-and thus we should move forward, conscious of our own fallibility. 

 

Indeed.

 

Very interesting (: I think my world is a warped perception of reality that I believe and hold dear, whilst others see the world in their own way. Therefore reality is nothing more than some sensible things like we are alive and need oxygen, and your reality and mine are nothing alike. Now I mean not talking about going insane and killing people mentality, but in order for me to survive I live in fantasy, some ignorance, and warped senses. I'm not a philosopher. But there's my take on it

Yes, this is where my theory came from. Once I accepted the idea of warped reality, I wasn't completely comfortable accepting any reality at all. What proof did I have that everything was not in those distortions? Why make such a huge assumption as an outside reality (with all the implications it carries) without confidence or proof? But I'll admit, your answer is less radical.

Also, anyone can be a philosopher! All you have to do is think. All that "philosopher" means (from the ancient Greek roots) is "lover of knowledge," and loving knowledge isn't that hard to do.

 

On a side note, do you guys think that I should make another of these once this discussion dies down? One for language, or other topics? Let me know, and give me some ideas. Maybe we can make a whole progression of philosophy threads.

[Thunderchild 875]

 

 

On a side note, do you guys think that I should make another of these once this discussion dies down? One for language, or other topics? Let me know, and give me some ideas. Maybe we can make a whole progression of philosophy threads.

 

I'd be up for it-although your target audience might be a bit tight here on the My Little Pony forum...

 

The problem is that, most things develop quickly into mudslinging-however eloquent the prose. Religion inevitably get's brought into it, politics, general personal hygiene of the opposing figure..you appear to be somewhat familiar with discussions of this ilk even though you're new here. Such things usually end up with hurt feelings and Mods being involved. Anything beyond what we currently have here together is probably ill advised.

[Suukorak 354]

I'd be up for it-although your target audience might be a bit tight here on the My Little Pony forum...

 

The problem is that, most things develop quickly into mudslinging-however eloquent the prose. Religion inevitably get's brought into it, politics, general personal hygiene of the opposing figure..you appear to be somewhat familiar with discussions of this ilk even though you're new here. Such things usually end up with hurt feelings and Mods being involved. Anything beyond what we currently have here together is probably ill advised.

Granted, I wouldn't do it if this were the majority of the internet. But we've got a pretty understanding community here. Also, there are certain philosphical topics which don't really touch religion or politics all that closely. For example, how does the language in which we speak affect the way we see the world?

It's notable that we haven't gotten any such arguments here, despite directly touching the existence of God and so on. Anyway, it's something to consider, and this thread certainly is still alive and kicking for the moment.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

There are some ways to determine the objective reality. The scientific method being the biggest. If two or more people perform the same experiment, in the same conditions, and observe the same results, then that's obviously not of their making or reality.

 

For instance filling a balloon with hydrogen and shooting it would make an explosion, if a small one. If I gave the gun to a kid who doesn't understand physics and told him to shoot it, his lack of understanding would not mean the hydrogen within the balloon would not combust.

 

I do think there is something of an external reality, something beyond our comprehension. We are constantly learning new things. For every question answered, more questions arise. More still, Descartes famous "I think, therefore I am." Illustrates more than just the existence of identity, it hints at a non-physical existence.

 

Artistic value, morality, love, friendship, indeed philosophy, these things don't physically exist. You can't hold them, they aren't observable through scientific or technological means like gravity or the invisible portions of the light spectrum are, but aren't they just as real as time or matter?

[Blaze Bronson 343]

I can think, therefore I definitely exist.

My senses give me information about something, therefore something, possibly the world as told by my senses, exists.

That's all that can be proven.

 

Last Thursdayism or The Matrix like theories still need something to exist to be possible.

 

Possibly reality is so harsh and gruesome that the mind has made the filter itself, protecting the consciousness. So essentially we are living inside a dream state filtered out by the brain, while in reality we are nothing like we think.

(Plot twist: this is closer to reality than you think, think about love, friendship and generosity)

 

Another fun fact, which I don't have the source to

The probability that we are in a "matrix" right now, is bigger than you think.

It was a study that calculated the probability that we would develop artificial intelligence, and the possibility that we could fully control the human senses, combined with the likelihood and amount of people that would be put in this "matrix".

Turns out, there is a high chance many people will be "matrixed" in the future, which in turn means that the chance of you being in a "matrix" right now, is actually pretty big.

 

BUT, ending on a positive note. I don't care, beyond interesting debate of course, because I don't think about these things while living my normal life. Which is my reality, and I try to make it the best place I can possibly make it 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I can think, therefore I definitely exist.

My senses give me information about something, therefore something, possibly the world as told by my senses, exists.

That's all that can be proven.

 

Last Thursdayism or The Matrix like theories still need something to exist to be possible.

 

Possibly reality is so harsh and gruesome that the mind has made the filter itself, protecting the consciousness. So essentially we are living inside a dream state filtered out by the brain, while in reality we are nothing like we think.

(Plot twist: this is closer to reality than you think, think about love, friendship and generosity)

 

Another fun fact, which I don't have the source to

The probability that we are in a "matrix" right now, is bigger than you think.

It was a study that calculated the probability that we would develop artificial intelligence, and the possibility that we could fully control the human senses, combined with the likelihood and amount of people that would be put in this "matrix".

Turns out, there is a high chance many people will be "matrixed" in the future, which in turn means that the chance of you being in a "matrix" right now, is actually pretty big.

 

BUT, ending on a positive note. I don't care, beyond interesting debate of course, because I don't think about these things while living my normal life. Which is my reality, and I try to make it the best place I can possibly make it 

 

Hey, who says the Matrix would be bad? Immortality, physical space and material limited only by bandwidth and processor power, our environments being entirely controlled by the limitless potential of the mind? Sounds like something I'd vacation with at the very least.

 

If we already have achieved such and we already are in a "simulated" reality, that only seems like encouragement. We did it once, we can do it again.

 

We need to go deeper.  :okiedokielokie:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXLDv-fUINM

I'd be up for it-although your target audience might be a bit tight here on the My Little Pony forum...

 

The problem is that, most things develop quickly into mudslinging-however eloquent the prose. Religion inevitably get's brought into it, politics, general personal hygiene of the opposing figure..you appear to be somewhat familiar with discussions of this ilk even though you're new here. Such things usually end up with hurt feelings and Mods being involved. Anything beyond what we currently have here together is probably ill advised.

 

 

Granted, I wouldn't do it if this were the majority of the internet. But we've got a pretty understanding community here. Also, there are certain philosphical topics which don't really touch religion or politics all that closely. For example, how does the language in which we speak affect the way we see the world?

It's notable that we haven't gotten any such arguments here, despite directly touching the existence of God and so on. Anyway, it's something to consider, and this thread certainly is still alive and kicking for the moment.

 

Religion has been discussed many times and many times to mutually beneficial results and with respect all around. We're bronies, unlike many places, we actually care about creating an accepting and nurturing environment.

 

 

My feeling on religion has always remained constant. As long as you're not hurting anyone else, go for it. As soon as you allow it to direct you towards causing others who don't believe like you to suffer in any way, you have become anathema to the world. No-one has the answer beyond any doubt-and thus we should move forward, conscious of our own fallibility. 

 

Amen. As a man of faith, I completely agree. 

Existence does seem hard to define, though I would most closely define it like this: "x exists" means the same thing as "I perceive x" (whether it's that you see it in front of you, or in memory, or think it, or feel that emotion). Thus, in a certain way, I can say "God does not exist," because I'm not religious and do not sense His presence. But someone else, who can "feel His love in [their] heart," would just as truthfully be able to say "God exists."

 

One day a Guru asked the Buddha if there was a God. The Buddha said, "no." There was much rejoicing that day, so many did things they never would have done if they had faith that there was a God. At the end of the day, a materialist (one who believed in only what they could see or observe) came from out of town and he asked the Buddha the same question. The Buddha said, "yes, there is a God."

 

What do you think Siddhartha meant?

Edited March 20, 2015 by Steel Accord