I just don't *want* to believe!

[pitabread]

You think you made a point and I disagreed.

Disagreed with what? You still haven't indicated any disagreement with anything I wrote re: probability calcs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Disagreed with what? You still haven't indicated any disagreement with anything I wrote re: probability calcs.

Still didn't get it? Oh well, there is only so much I can do to explain it.

As I mentioned to Jimmy, since you refuse to accept my answer, you must be right, and that makes this another win for evolution, twisted as the concept may be.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[pitabread]

Still didn't get it? Oh well, there is only so much I can do to explain it.

As I mentioned to Jimmy, since you refuse to accept my answer, you must be right, and that makes this another win for evolution, twisted as the concept may be.

You haven't given an answer (at least not one which points to any specific point of disagreement). You again appear to be just playing silly games.

So until you list a point of disagreement with what I wrote re: probability calcs, I'm just going to operate under the pretense that you don't disagree with what I wrote.

 

[bhsmte]

You haven't given an answer (at least not one which points to any specific point of disagreement). You again appear to be just playing silly games.

So until you list a point of disagreement with what I wrote re: probability calcs, I'm just going to operate under the pretense that you don't disagree with what I wrote.

You won't get one. That would be going out on a limb.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You haven't given an answer (at least not one which points to any specific point of disagreement). You again appear to be just playing silly games.

So until you list a point of disagreement with what I wrote re: probability calcs, I'm just going to operate under the pretense that you don't disagree with what I wrote.

Say goodnight, Pita.

 

[pitabread]

You won't get one. That would be going out on a limb.

Oh, I know. That would involve actually discussing the topic at hand.

 

[pitabread]

Well, I would say that whatever phenomenon an individual perceives in the here and now, it is very "real" to that person in that it is perceived and experienced.

Sure, an experience can be very "real" to the individual. But that isn't necessarily the best benchmark for objective evidence.

A visual hallucination, for example, can appear as a visual 'thing' to the individual experiencing the hallucination. But that doesn't make whatever they are hallucinating a physical, tangible object.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You won't get one. That would be going out on a limb.

Sometimes I hate it when I'm right, especially when it brings on something as pitiful as is happening here, as you all using something that is really nothing, milking it for all it's worth in order to make yourselves appear right....for once. Just goes to show the sad insecurities that develop from purporting an absolutely unproven/uprovable evolution that no matter how hard you try, you can't be right about.

It's understandable one would feel the need create a chance to be right at anything they can in a case like that, then embellish it.

 

[pitabread]

Sometimes I hate it when I'm right, especially when it brings on something as pitiful as is happening here, as you all using something that is really nothing, milking it for all it's worth in order to make yourselves appear right....for once.

I'd like to think that we're all in agreement on this topic (as there still appears to be no disagreement) and therefore we all get to be right. Including you. Yay Kenny! Yay us!

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I would say that whatever phenomenon an individual perceives in the here and now, it is very "real" to that person in that it is perceived and experienced.

Agree, but those human perceptions are quite flawed.

Likely why, eye witness testimony in a court of law, can be easily impeached, with verifiable objective evidence.

 

[ananda]

Sure, an experience can be very "real" to the individual. But that isn't necessarily the best benchmark for objective evidence.

A visual hallucination, for example, can appear as a visual 'thing' to the individual experiencing the hallucination. But that doesn't make whatever they are hallucinating a physical, tangible object.

Agree, but those human perceptions are quite flawed.

Likely why, eye witness testimony in a court of law, can be easily impeached, with verifiable objective evidence.

In Buddhism as I understand it, what is directly experienced (a mental object) is just as real as - and is arguably even more important than - any physical object, because 1. physical objects are experienced as mental objects, and 2. what we experience in our minds is essentially reality from our own perspective.

 

[JIMINZ]

Sure, an experience can be very "real" to the individual. But that isn't necessarily the best benchmark for objective evidence.

A visual hallucination, for example, can appear as a visual 'thing' to the individual experiencing the hallucination. But that doesn't make whatever they are hallucinating a physical, tangible object.

Hallucination and the Spiritual Realm, two different understandings, Hallucination exists only in the Physical Realm and is a false belief that something actually does exist.

The Spiritual Realm on the other hand really does exist, and unless you are in the Spiritual Realm, you are unable to accept it as the only true reality.

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
Give us day by day our daily bread.
And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever....amen

You just don't get it, the Kingdom of God has come and your on the outside of it denying it exists your understanding has been darkened to the truth because you refuse to accept the reality which is all around you.

Repent and receive the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, become Baptized into Christ, you will then enter the Spiritual Realm and have your eyes opened to the truth.

 

[pitabread]

The Spiritual Realm on the other hand really does exist, and unless you are in the Spiritual Realm, you are unable to accept it as the only true reality.

Unfortunately this falls under the typical "you'll believe when you believe" circular reasoning that usually results in not having any other demonstrative evidence to support the existence of something.

 

[pitabread]

In Buddhism as I understand it, what is directly experienced (a mental object) is just as real as - and is arguably even more important than - any physical object, because 1. physical objects are experienced as mental objects, and 2. what we experience in our minds is essentially reality from our own perspective.

I've actually experienced hypnopompic hallucinations; basically, I wake up but I'm still dreaming. I've seen a variety of different things in this state, usually related to whatever I was dreaming about. But I wouldn't consider them "just as real" as physical objects. In fact, in many cases I specifically know they aren't real and consequently can dismiss them as such.

 

[bhsmte]

In Buddhism as I understand it, what is directly experienced (a mental object) is just as real as - and is arguably even more important than - any physical object, because 1. physical objects are experienced as mental objects, and 2. what we experience in our minds is essentially reality from our own perspective.

You lost me.

 

[ananda]

I've actually experienced hypnopompic hallucinations; basically, I wake up but I'm still dreaming. I've seen a variety of different things in this state, usually related to whatever I was dreaming about. But I wouldn't consider them "just as real" as physical objects. In fact, in many cases I specifically know they aren't real and consequently can dismiss them as such.

IMO they're "real" in the sense that you're experiencing them, phenomenologically.

 

[ananda]

You lost me.

Well, what I was pointing out is that something experienced in the mind is "real" merely in light of the fact that an individual truly experiences something. It is real for that person, at that moment, as it possesses various mental properties.

Whether or not it can be expressed or proven to someone else is another story.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, what I was pointing out is that something experienced in the mind is "real" merely in light of the fact that an individual truly experiences something. It is real for that person, at that moment, as it possesses various mental properties.

Whether or not it can be expressed or proven to someone else is another story.

No matter how violent, no matter how vivid, no hallucination of me being stabbed by anything can result in any analogous physical harm coming to me, because while the signals firing in my brain are real, they don't represent reality.

 

[ananda]

No matter how violent, no matter how vivid, no hallucination of me being stabbed by anything can result in any analogous physical harm coming to me, because while the signals firing in my brain are real, they don't represent reality.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "real" and "reality".

On the phenomenological level of reality, whatever I feel or experience in the mind is indeed "real" and "reality", as the experience more often than not affects my thoughts, perceptions, feelings, drives, motivations, etc. ... even if those things experienced do not exist on the physical level of reality.