Hello guys!Do u think this universe is meaningless and in a way this life doesn't have a sense?I believe there is a god and reincarnation exists and that kind of stuffs but they simply exist like this life, it happend to exist.I mean everyone has their own truth but how can we know that a person is right or some persons are right or even me I am right?I think if u find the answers to some questions more and more answers will arive and you will not get a straight answer.Maybe this life just happened to exist and reincarnation and karma are just like the laws of physics not a hocus-pocus thing.Hope u understand what I was saying.Please I wanna hear your opinion about this!
there is no truth
- Thread starter victoryou
- Start date
You think I am crazy, right?I totally understand
We have a section for acid trips FYI.
))
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Truth can be a subjective term. I prefer the term "accuracy." The ultimate decider of accuracy is nature. For example, my truth may tell me that gravity isn't real, yet if I walk off a cliff, it's natures truth that gets the final say. In fact, my feelings and opinions on gravity couldn't be more inconsequential.
So, if you want to test your own truth for accuracy, you have to design a test which allows nature to be the judge. The best method we have of doing this is science.
So how would you test your ideas of reincarnation or karma? You've compared them to the laws of physics, yet the laws of physics are clearly defined and extremely well tested. So, it seems like a good start would be to clearly define karma and reincarnation. In other words, you need to clearly work out your hypothesis. A well defined hypothesis will then reveal logical implications, aka predictions. Those predictions will then allow you to design tests, aka experiments, to see if they hold up. Again, those tests must be such as they allow nature to have the final say.
This is the only way to match up personal truth and accuracy. If you are not using science to test what you think is true about reality, then you have no way of knowing if you are merely rehearsing your preconceived notions and confirming your biases.
So, if you want to test your own truth for accuracy, you have to design a test which allows nature to be the judge. The best method we have of doing this is science.
So how would you test your ideas of reincarnation or karma? You've compared them to the laws of physics, yet the laws of physics are clearly defined and extremely well tested. So, it seems like a good start would be to clearly define karma and reincarnation. In other words, you need to clearly work out your hypothesis. A well defined hypothesis will then reveal logical implications, aka predictions. Those predictions will then allow you to design tests, aka experiments, to see if they hold up. Again, those tests must be such as they allow nature to have the final say.
This is the only way to match up personal truth and accuracy. If you are not using science to test what you think is true about reality, then you have no way of knowing if you are merely rehearsing your preconceived notions and confirming your biases.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
But isn't there also objective truth? Isn't there a real world and isn't there many things that are either true or false about it. I mean the earth is a sphere, 12 × 12 = 144, but isn't there also subjective truths? America has the most powerful military on earth, a psychopath is incapable of love, are these statements not also true?
Indacouch
Well-Known Member
No,but what strain were you smoking when you started this thread?You think I am crazy, right?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course. I was only suggesting the alternate term for the sake of clarity. "Truth" is a word that can mean different things depending on the person and the context. "Accuracy" has less wiggle room.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
I understand that science is how we understand objective truths, it's how we come to realize things about the physical world, but how do we find the subjective metaphysical truths? Or is it all just opinion? Surely psychology and psychiatry are based on science but how are we sure that a psychopath is incapable of love, because numerous studies have suggested this? I am most certainly a psychopath and I am capable of love, but all of the research I have done says that psychopaths are not capable of true love. What are your thoughts on the validity of psychology? Is it pseudoscience or is it more philosophy than science?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
What would be an example of a metaphysical truth?
The term psychopath is a label, not a diagnosis. The diagnosis would be antisocial personality disorder. Like all personality disorders, it's a spectrum. One criteria is a diminished capacity for empathy and remorse, which doesn't necessarily mean the total absence of those feelings. Additionally, that diminished capacity may come from rationalizing or otherwise ignoring the feelings, rather than the inability to have them. This criteria doesn't even have to be present to receive the diagnosis, as the DSM lists 7 possible criteria, needing 3 or more to make the diagnosis. The overall commonality is a disregard for the feelings and values of others, but that indifference could be the result of various things. So, as far as official diagnostics go, the idea that all psychopaths are incapable of love is not a claim that's being made. It's just something that a lot of people say.
Psychiatry is arguably the least science-based of the medical specialties. That has started to change in the last decade or so. Psychiatry has made some astonishing errors in the past but has thankfully learned from its mistakes. There is a baby in all that bathwater, but yes, it's some very dirty water. That means that any single study should be highly suspect, and reproducibility should be valued. If we have a large body of literature to support an idea, then it is probably on steady ground. But if it's a recent finding that the media is raving about, you should apply a lot of skepticism.
The term psychopath is a label, not a diagnosis. The diagnosis would be antisocial personality disorder. Like all personality disorders, it's a spectrum. One criteria is a diminished capacity for empathy and remorse, which doesn't necessarily mean the total absence of those feelings. Additionally, that diminished capacity may come from rationalizing or otherwise ignoring the feelings, rather than the inability to have them. This criteria doesn't even have to be present to receive the diagnosis, as the DSM lists 7 possible criteria, needing 3 or more to make the diagnosis. The overall commonality is a disregard for the feelings and values of others, but that indifference could be the result of various things. So, as far as official diagnostics go, the idea that all psychopaths are incapable of love is not a claim that's being made. It's just something that a lot of people say.
Psychiatry is arguably the least science-based of the medical specialties. That has started to change in the last decade or so. Psychiatry has made some astonishing errors in the past but has thankfully learned from its mistakes. There is a baby in all that bathwater, but yes, it's some very dirty water. That means that any single study should be highly suspect, and reproducibility should be valued. If we have a large body of literature to support an idea, then it is probably on steady ground. But if it's a recent finding that the media is raving about, you should apply a lot of skepticism.
Venus55
Well-Known Member
Haha too funny!
New Age United
Well-Known Member
I think; I have an ego; I have formed beliefs and ideas with my thoughts; nature is beautiful; life is sacred. Objectively these are just chemical reactions in my brain but they are absolutely true to me, awareness, the witness, the I am that knows that I am.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Meaning and value is applied by the brain. Different things mean different things to different brains. That doesn't diminish them though. Just because they amount to chemical reactions doesn't make them any less significant. It does, however, mean that we accept personal truths and values with a degree of uncertainty.
Do you practice mindfulness meditation? The more meaning is examined the more we find that none of them are absolutely true. I think, therefore I am, everything else is suspect.
New Age United
Well-Known Member
But isn't that also suspect "I think, therefore I am". I mean is it really us that does the thinking? I wouldn't call it meditation because meditation literally means to think, but I do practice presence, becoming directly aware of the present moment and not thinking so much about past and future, and the more I practice presence the more often I catch my ego, the thinker, doing its own thing without my own volition. Have you ever separated awareness from thought Heisenberg? Have you ever just watched the thinker inside your head without volition or judgment? I've come to realize that much of the activity of my mind is completely out of my control, I honestly don't believe in free will, what are your thoughts about free will?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
"I think, therefore I am" is the only thing we should accept without skepticism, because to do otherwise is not much different than non-existence. Is it us doing the thinking? We'll, yes, but the "us" is largely an illusion. But again, how else would we experience reality and gain something from it? This is how our brains have figured out how to connect with the world rather than merely exist in it like a plant. It creates illusions, even delusions, and fools us at nearly every step and turn, but in doing so, it allows us to make something useful out of the noise.
It's curious that you point out that meditation means "to think." Your are correct, of course, but the irony had never struck me before. Mindfulness meditation is what you have described. It's about observing the self. Disconnecting as a means of becoming more connected. I have used headspace for more than a year, though I will be switching to Sam Harris's app when it comes out.
Free will is a subject I haven't finished wrestling with. Everything I know about the brain tells me that free will is just another mind trick. I tend to agree with many of the arguments of Harris and Robert Sapolsky, who argue that free will is an illusion (more specifically, for incompatibilist determinism). However, Daniel Dennent cautions us that what we consider free will isn't even worthy of the title (because it doesn't exist) but that there is something else in us, that does exist, and we should call that thing free will.
I suppose I learn towards Dennent, because ultimately I feel it doesn't matter, and I'm not sure it's entirely worthwhile to sort it out. Free will may be an illusion, but it's my illusion, unique to me, probably never created before, and possibly never to be recreated again. My choices may amount to the results of the mechanics of a universe governed by cause and effect, but they have my flavor, were calculated by my internal processes, and come from someone that could only be me.
Last edited:
New Age United
Well-Known Member
In your meditation have you ever experienced a moment of "no thought". The absence of thought but still completely and alertly aware, this is the literal meaning of Zen. If my being is ensured by the quickly fleeting thoughts inside my mind, then who am I when thinking stops? How is it that when thinking stops I still remain? Yes I understand exactly what you mean by connecting with the world and becoming active participants but in the state of Zen it is much like being a plant; you don't always have to "do" sometimes you can just "be".
New Age United
Well-Known Member
I guess what I'm saying @Heisenberg is are we the Thinker or are we the awareness in the background, as it were? I have the ability to realize that I am without thought, either before or after or in between my thoughts I still am.
mauricem00
Well-Known Member
intrinsic in the laws that govern the universe is creative bias commonly referred to as natural law.these laws can be know by studying the non-deterministic or first cause events in the universe. they serve as a guiding force in the evolution of common law and the evolution of society.since all mater is deterministic the source of these non-deterministic elements must be outside the material universe and can only be know by studying their effects.the "BIG BANG" would have produced nothing more than a rapidly expanding cloud of particles if this force did not exist.even Stephen Hawkins could not explain this force so he concluded that we do not have "free will" or any power to resist the influence of our circumstance and that the cosmic non-deterministic events are cause by interaction with multiple parallel universes. a theory that is impossible to test. we can accept this untestable theory or accept the existence of an intelligence guiding the evolution of the universe which would suggest that we were created for a purpose from the beginning man has tried to understand that purpose but their seems to be a consensus in all the ancient core beliefs. governments have perverted that in order to use religion to subjugate and control people.the problem with this is that we need to take responsibility for our actions and their consequences. we decide our future.but within the framework of those natural laws
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
It's a bit hard to parse what you are saying due to the lack of punctuation, so feel free to correct me if I have misunderstood. I agree with most of your summary here, but the part I've quoted sounds like a false dichotomy. While it may be true that we cannot devise a test to demonstrate that the universe was set in motion due to interactions with other realities, it's also true that we have no test that would tell us the universe was set into motion by an purposeful intelligence. That we have no way of knowing tells us nothing more than we have no way of knowing.
If there were a clear purpose to life then we would have reason to favor an intelligent first mover, but if purpose is there, it's far from clear. The idea that the first cause was due to interactions with the multiverse would have the benefit of being more parsimonious, yet the concept of parsimony comes from studying the universe were in, so we cannot be sure it applies to that which is outside. All we can really say is that there is no room for analysis, so from this angle an intelligent first mover is indistinguishable from happenstance.
IMO this is why deism is a dead end. It's superfluous, and the best that can be said in its defense is that superfluousness may not matter. But if being superfluous doesn't matter, then perhaps the first cause was universe farting pixies which created our reality inadvertently, with no purpose in mind.