Posts by Edward Flores4

Honestly, this boredom is just a total waste of time!

Richard Walker79 said:Honestly, folks, the absolute best kind of meditation is just washing the dishes every single day, both morning and night.
Don't go thinking I'm joking here; I actually found my way into a state of total zen quite easily.

Man, you're really digging deep here... saying "I" entered "into" samadhi.

Is that what they call puberty where you're from? 🤣

Lawrence Robinson5 said:I hear where you're coming from, man, but I really don't get how you can assume that humans don't change things. If we aren't making an impact, then what are we? Just pawns for God and the Devil? Slaves to fate? A byproduct of genetics or pure mechanics?

In your view, what does "will" even mean?

Think about it—when a historical leader decided to launch a crusade against a region because they viewed it as too free-thinking, that didn't just vanish. That act set American culture back by centuries. Does that mean nothing? Does a worldview carry zero weight? It won't change the fact that water is wet, sure, but if human agency doesn't matter, why even bother talking? Why are you drawn to philosophy in the first place? Is it just to prove that humans are irrelevant? That's a hard pill to swallow.

Every living thing knows it matters. And when someone tries to convince you otherwise, there's this internal friction—this clash between two realities, the one being forced upon you and the one you know to be true—that is exactly how people are manipulated and ruled over (by others). If that "other" is you, you can't just shrug it off. If someone tells you your life and your desires are worthless and demands you abandon them just because they say so, are you going to just say "okay"? Or are you going to thank them for the input and walk away?

You're saying reality isn't shaped by thought?

Human history is essentially a timeline of shifting perspectives. People have died for ideas, and entire civilizations have crumbled because of them.

If you're telling me that none of that matters in the grand scheme, I just can't go there with you. We influence nature through our thoughts (usually by failing to think clearly, which is still a form of mental state, strictly speaking). Obsessing over things we can't control—like the chemical properties of elements—is a total waste of time, unless it's to better understand how the world works so we can act more effectively. We should focus on what we *can* change, because that's how we fulfill our purpose. We aren't here to be mere spectators—who's even going to read our journals? People just as "irrelevant" as us? We are here to act. And action, much like any force, can be creative or destructive. It's creative when we think the right way, and destructive when we refuse to.

We have to be practical. Because a theory you can't actually use isn't really a theory at all.

And honestly... claiming that our actions don't change anything is just a convenient way to dodge responsibility. It's a way to avoid growing up. I think that's where the fear comes from: the realization that we have to own our actions and realize we actually matter in the big picture. The truth is, we live in a world where what we think makes all the difference.

👍

placidranger said:Fine, but if we're aiming for that same psychological impact—some kind of amor fati—it’s unlikely we’ll get there just by "being grateful to ourselves."
Quincy:

People rejected by one circle will hunt for a less critical one, accepting whatever ideology is required just to secure a sense of belonging. Generally, the more radical the ideology, the less scrutiny exists among its followers. Sadly, claiming to believe something and actually believing it are two entirely different things. There are also those who merely convince themselves they believe—but that's beside the point here.

The fear of being an outcast is definitely a factor, I'll give you that. But there's something else at play. Some claim they found a new purpose through faith—a reason to wake up and keep grinding. It would be interesting to see if we could replicate that sense of purpose without dragging religion into it.

I’ve been chewing on everything you said, and honestly, I think you might have missed a crucial detail: people experience the exact same "stuff" in wildly different ways. We're talking about a massive spectrum here—from the folks whose faith makes them kinder, more mindful, and genuinely better neighbors, all the way down to the religious extremists who are willing to throw lives away in the name of God. It's the same story with any ideology, really. To put it simply: if you give high-octane fuel to someone smart, they'll use it to run an engine or heat a home efficiently. You give a bucket of gasoline to a fool, and you end up with a massive fire.

Ethics is the one thing you can't just accept blindly if it ends up being destructive to society—but let's face it, some people will always grab the gasoline over the ethical handbook. As long as people can hide behind "personal freedom" to justify whatever nonsense they want, nothing is ever going to truly take root. The only way to move the needle is to stay critical of idiocy and foolishness; that's the only way we can keep ideologies within a range that actually aligns with basic human ethics. If we do that, then it doesn't really matter what you call your belief system, or even if you believe in anything at all.

hiddenhawk3 said:Religion is an institution, and as one, it doesn't break your chains—it just adds more. I don't think you can ever have total freedom in any society. You mostly just get the illusion that anything is possible, when it really isn't.

My point is specifically about how they encourage irresponsibility through those "double bind" demands churches throw at you—it's designed to force people into this impossible tug-of-war where you're guaranteed to feel guilty no matter what you choose. It’s a tactic to keep people quiet and compliant in the pews and out on the streets, but once the mask slips, they end up being even worse than they were before the sermon ended.

placidranger said:I'm talking about specific mechanisms that actually improve quality of life—like giving thanks to a higher power. I don't see an equivalent for an atheist. What then? Giving thanks to yourself?

It's a shame nobody can live two parallel lives to figure out if things would truly be easier without faith.

What about converts?
What drives them to cling so tightly to their newfound faith? You see it with addicts in rehab centers finding "Jesus," or even just regular folks who suddenly embrace religion after a car wreck or some other trauma.

Just for a change of pace, I’ve been thinking about this—and honestly, it’s a bit of a heavy one. When you start placing yourself beneath some higher power, you’re essentially setting yourself up on a fast track to devaluing your own worth. It’s like when you see those rigid corporate hierarchies at places like Goldman Sachs or big tech giants—once that ladder is established, people just default to "command and control" mode. They basically switch off their brains and go into this mindless autopilot, where every single decision they make is filtered through nothing but their own self-interest. It’s incredibly short-sighted, too. I mean, let’s be real—it is notoriously difficult to find any sense of genuine happiness when you’re stuck in a toxic, hyper-competitive environment like that. But here's the kicker: once you label that entire situation as "God's will," suddenly making a logical conclusion becomes almost impossible. People just stop questioning things, even when the math doesn't add up.

placidranger said:I'm talking about specific mechanisms that actually improve quality of life—like giving thanks to a higher power. I don't see an equivalent for an atheist. What then? Giving thanks to yourself?

It's a shame nobody can live two parallel lives to figure out if things would truly be easier without faith.

What about converts?
What drives them to cling so tightly to their newfound faith? You see it with addicts in rehab centers finding "Jesus," or even just regular folks who suddenly embrace religion after a car wreck or some other trauma.

It’s a classic pattern, really—people get rejected by one social circle and end up hunting for a new one that isn't quite as judgmental. They aren't necessarily looking for truth; they're just looking for a place where the entry fee is simply agreeing with the group's core ideology. It’s almost like joining a gated community where the only requirement for residency is nodding along to everything the HOA says. And here’s the funny thing about these echo chambers: the more radical the ideology becomes, the less critical thinking actually happens among the followers. It all turns into this feedback loop of constant affirmation. There’s no pushback, no "hey, maybe we should look at this differently?"—just total consensus. The real kicker, though, is the gap between performance and conviction. Saying you believe something is one thing—it's easy to play the part to fit in—but actually holding that belief in your gut is an entirely different animal. Of course, there’s that middle ground where people convince themselves they truly believe it just to survive socially, but honestly? In this context, that distinction doesn't even matter. At the end of the day, the result is exactly the same.

placidranger said:If someone thinks they're happy, then they are. Happiness is a subjective category, and to me, it’s pretty vital.
What I'm actually trying to do is find a substitute for the mechanisms that religion provides. Roba mentioned optimism as one component of that.

A perfect example would be a guy in the States who was convicted of murder—I think it was even life without parole—and years later, once science had developed DNA profiling, his lawyers requested new testing knowing he was innocent. Since the samples were preserved, it turned out he really wasn't guilty, and they freed him after he'd spent decades behind bars for something he didn't do. When he got out, he gave an interview to the press and said, "I thank God, I knew He wouldn't allow this..." It's ironic. Science sets him free, yet he gives the credit to God. One scientist commented on it, saying he'd rather kill himself than wait for science to bail him out. Only that specific brand of faith can force a man to endure something like that.

I don't see the irony. In his mind, God is the one who facilitated everything—including scientific progress.

In his case, science stepped in to assist God. Maybe for him, the belief paid off, but for many others, it never does, despite believing their entire lives.

Maybe it just makes life easier for them.

Good luck with that. If you want to find a true replacement, it has to have "something" in it—some kind of mechanism that takes the weight of responsibility for all human actions, allowing people to act on their whims while still having the option for an occasional confession. That way, they can go out and mess things up for others, then turn around and ask God for forgiveness. Honestly, even finding one single mechanism like that feels like a stretch, but hey, that's just my two cents... take it or leave it.

placidranger said:If someone thinks they're happy, then they are. Happiness is a subjective category, and to me, it’s pretty vital.
What I'm actually trying to do is find a substitute for the mechanisms that religion provides. Roba mentioned optimism as one component of that.

A perfect example would be a guy in the States who was convicted of murder—I think it was even life without parole—and years later, once science had developed DNA profiling, his lawyers requested new testing knowing he was innocent. Since the samples were preserved, it turned out he really wasn't guilty, and they freed him after he'd spent decades behind bars for something he didn't do. When he got out, he gave an interview to the press and said, "I thank God, I knew He wouldn't allow this..." It's ironic. Science sets him free, yet he gives the credit to God. One scientist commented on it, saying he'd rather kill himself than wait for science to bail him out. Only that specific brand of faith can force a man to endure something like that.

I don't see the irony. In his mind, God is the one who facilitated everything—including scientific progress.

In his case, science stepped in to assist God. Maybe for him, the belief paid off, but for many others, it never does, despite believing their entire lives.

Maybe it just makes life easier for them.

Irony isn't some tangible "ingredient" you can point to... it’s all about perspective, or more specifically, how he sees things in his own head.

placidranger said:If someone thinks they're happy, then they are. Happiness is a subjective category, and to me, it’s pretty vital.
What I'm actually trying to do is find a substitute for the mechanisms that religion provides. Roba mentioned optimism as one component of that.

A perfect example would be a guy in the States who was convicted of murder—I think it was even life without parole—and years later, once science had developed DNA profiling, his lawyers requested new testing knowing he was innocent. Since the samples were preserved, it turned out he really wasn't guilty, and they freed him after he'd spent decades behind bars for something he didn't do. When he got out, he gave an interview to the press and said, "I thank God, I knew He wouldn't allow this..." It's ironic. Science sets him free, yet he gives the credit to God. One scientist commented on it, saying he'd rather kill himself than wait for science to bail him out. Only that specific brand of faith can force a man to endure something like that.

I don't see the irony. In his mind, God is the one who facilitated everything—including scientific progress.

In his case, science stepped in to assist God. Maybe for him, the belief paid off, but for many others, it never does, despite believing their entire lives.

Maybe it just makes life easier for them.

It’s a shame nobody can live two parallel lives at once—that would be the only way to figure out if things actually *are* easier for them because of their faith, or if it's just an illusion.

Look, I’m not denying that faith in Bog can offer some serious psychological perks to someone who truly believes—it really can. But just because it provides a mental cushion doesn't mean it offers any other kind of tangible benefit. At best, it just makes those incredibly heavy, soul-crushing situations a little easier to stomach.

A perfect example comes to mind—there was this guy in the States who was convicted of murder (I think he actually got life) and sat there for years. Once DNA testing finally became a standard scientific tool, his lawyers pushed for a new forensic analysis, knowing deep down he was innocent. Since they had preserved the samples, it turned out he really hadn't done it at all. After spending decades behind bars for a crime he didn't commit, he was finally set free. When he walked out, he sat down for a newspaper interview and basically said, "I thank Bog, I knew He wouldn't let this happen..." It’s pretty ironic, isn't it? Science is what actually pulled him out of that cell, yet he gives all the credit to Bog. One scientist actually commented on the whole thing, saying that if he were in that man's shoes, he probably would have ended it all rather than waiting around for science to eventually save him. I suppose that specific brand of faith is exactly what gave him the strength to endure such a nightmare.

In his case, science essentially stepped in to back up Bog, so maybe his faith paid off in a way. But for so many others, that faith never yields a result, even when they spend their entire lives believing.

By the way, there’s this fantastic convention that’s been running for two years now, and you can actually watch the full program online—it's packed with lectures from some really eminent scientists. The whole event focuses on the role of faith within society. There are some genuinely diverse and fascinating perspectives in there, and honestly, some of the scientists are more narrow-minded than the most hardcore believers. I highly recommend checking out both years:

year one
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/

year two
http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief2/watch/

fadedbison17 said:What's your deal, following my posts around just to twist my words and talk nonsense...? Seriously annoying.
Just a heads up—I've put you on my ignore list. Honestly, I'd rather just toss a grenade at ya... 😛

That right there? That’s what I call objective fanaticism. 😁

fadedbison17 said:Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Doing my best...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

What you're describing there is consistency, not objectivity.

fadedbison17 said:Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Doing my best...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

Think about it—we use measurements to track things we can't even see, interpreting data from electromagnetic spectrums, molecular structures, astronomical readings, or statistical models. We use theoretical reasoning, complex calculations, and all sorts of computer simulations... In my view, that’s plenty of ways to engage with the world beyond just basic sensory perception. And honestly, each of those methods is distinct enough that we can argue none of them are truly "objective," simply because they are all constant—just like a meter, a liter, or a minute—meaning you can't really discredit any single one of them.

fadedbison17 said:Love that title you used: 'man as the measurer of the immeasurable.'
Everything we see, feel, or know—it all gets filtered through our own lens because there’s nothing outside of us that we can actually experience. We aren't birds or a drop of water... we're just people, and we only perceive reality as humans.

Say we're standing in front of a field, and a buddy walks up and says, "this field is 10 square miles."
Who are we to claim that? Isn't that just a subjective take? What does that field actually have to do with the concept of "10 square miles"?

Humans invented units of measurement—we basically just decided to pick a standard (like the
meter) so we could make sense of distances. We didn't pull the meter out of thin air from some physical reality; we just picked a measure that works for us so we can
show ourselves
how far things are.
But even though that's a "subjective" idea, the measurement itself is objective since a meter is always a meter—it doesn't flip-flop between being two meters or half a meter.

How else would we grasp reality if not through our own context?
Some people call that kind of perception "subjective"—as if there’s some other way to experience the world besides our own senses.

Just to add to that bit about the meter...
Every single unit of measurement—everything we measure—happens within a context. And that context is simply the human being.
Anything invisible to the naked eye is just an extension of human perception. A microscope, an oscilloscope, a telescope... any gadget is just a byproduct of how we perceive things, not a denial of it. These tools exist because we need more knowledge to understand reality better.
If someone discovers a new particle tomorrow that's smaller than anything we've ever found, it'll only be possible because of the knowledge we've built up until now (which all starts with direct perception). It doesn't mean those particles weren't there before; it just means we didn't have the tools or the knowledge to be aware of them yet.Quote: living on this planet finally agree on what is 100% objectively real?

Lawrence Robinson5says: a few questions for the group: when did everyone

I don't really get this one. I mean, nobody's gonna argue when you drop an egg from the tenth floor and it shatters, right?
Maybe you mean most people have their own opinions on the world and don't necessarily agree with what seems obvious to you? I guess that's just life...

I wouldn't go against my own knowledge or logic just to please someone else—doesn't seem worth it. But when you stumble upon someone who actually sees things the way you do, it feels pretty good. Like a sense of connection or belonging... without being dependent on it.

Doing my best...

It’s tough to influence someone just because you want to—people gotta be open to new ideas first. Honestly, I wouldn't even bother writing if I didn't think there was a chance...

I figure there's only one reality, not just my version of it 😉
If I hit an argument that calls me out, I just assume the flaw is in my own thinking—something I need to fix. Happens pretty often, really... doesn't scare me or anything. I just take it in stride. People make mistakes all the time, so it's not like it's some personal failing I should be worried about...

Like I've said a bunch of times before—for anyone who missed my old posts—I believe reality is objective. Humans are part of that reality, and we can't just wish it away with our thoughts or whatever. My whole stance is based on Objectivism...

Maybe the intro to this post actually hits the nail on the head—humans experience reality through their own senses, and there isn't any other way to do it. Reality doesn't care how we label things just to make our lives easier, and it definitely doesn't care whether we choose to accept being a part of it or not.
Saying humans are subjective—just because we perceive things through the only lens available to us—doesn't mean we can't have objective observations.
If a person accepts that they're just one piece of a reality they can't control by sheer willpower, and if they actually respect the laws of logic... then yeah, their perception can be objective.

Well, you find that in every religious group, or really any community built under the umbrella of an ideology. A philosopher, though—they generally try not to belong to anything at all; their goal is to follow the path of knowledge. More often than not, that means being an outsider or getting marginalized rather than finding a group of like-minded people to feel close to. You've basically covered the whole playbook here, but at least you've laid out your motives for everyone else—even if you haven't quite figured them out yourself yet.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Your question actually carries this underlying assumption that we view perception as unreliable, which I don't think is a universal truth. Personally, I see perception as arbitrary and imperfect—kind of a messy affair—but since it’s really all we have to work with, I don't spend too much energy stressing over it. Think about the electromagnetic spectrum; even with all our high-tech sensors, we're barely tapping into 5% of what's actually out there. Any interpretation or perception based on just 5% of reality is inherently arbitrary, built upon a mountain of assumptions.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Because it’s a convenient way for a small group claiming "objective" status to convince the "subjective" majority that it’s in their best interest to let those "objectivists" make decisions for them. In short, they manufacture a fiction of authority, and authority is the bedrock of any kind of rule. Weapons, religious texts, science... they're all tools used to build that sense of authority.

Quote:table>

Lawrence Robinson5 says: Why do we need (if we need it at all—and I think we all do from time to time) external validation of our rights—when in the end, it doesn't matter? You live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own will, your own effort, and your own strength, regardless of what anyone tells you.

Because with my flawed perception—as limited as it is—it’s easy to miss certain angles of any given "problem." Engaging in discussion often gives me that much-needed boost in perspective. On the flip side, if an idea is actually solid, and people I respect for their insight agree with it, that idea gains credibility, allowing me to use it as a stepping stone for the next level of complex thought.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Honestly? No. I write about life—not necessarily how I'm performing it. We all have a general idea of what an "ideal" existence looks like, but let's be real: ideologies don't actually lead anyone anywhere. For me, everything needs to have some sort of practical utility, and that includes philosophy.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

I know for a fact that what others write shifts my own reality. I’d like to assume I'm not the only one—that my own words occasionally tilt someone else's perspective, too. Besides, what would my entire worldview even look like without the insights others have shared about it? These days, being a philosopher is almost "too easy" thanks to the internet and instant access to data. Someone drops an author's name and a book title, and I can spend my entire night reading up on the subject until I get it.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

If there's one thing I love, it's hearing an argument that forces me to completely dismantle and rebuild my interpretation of the world. I remember the first time I heard the claim that the world isn't made of matter, but of words. It took me over a year to truly wrap my head around the truth of that statement because—rightfully enough—the author didn't provide any immediate arguments to back it up. It's easy to dismiss a claim like that as pure nonsense, but when someone delivers a brilliant lecture and then drops a "hook" like that at the very end, I find myself unable to resist swallowing it whole.

And since identity itself is just a collection of words... no, I'm not afraid of words. 🙂

Lawrence Robinson5 said:a few questions for everyone here:

I’ve been thinking lately—when did we collectively decide that being human, just as we are, isn't quite enough to grasp the truth? When did we decide our own minds aren't sufficient, that our feelings don't count, or that our physical senses are basically useless? Since when did perception become something we can't trust?

Think about it: everything we actually know comes through those exact things—our subjective, raw experiences. Every single insight we possess is thanks to individual breakthroughs, which are, by their very nature, subjective.
A crowd can't really birth an idea from scratch—but man, they sure can corrupt one if they feel like it. 😁
The machines we use to measure outcomes? Those are just physical manifestations of human ideas—products of an individual's mind and hands.
And even the conclusions we draw about "objective reality"? Those are brought to us by—you guessed it—(only) the human mind.

So why all this intense skepticism toward subjective impressions? Why do we give more weight to some machine's reading than to our own eyes and ears? Is it just because it's considered an "impression"? But that impression exists—it's just as real as anything else out there.

When did every single person on this planet ever agree that something is 100% objectively, undeniably real?

And honestly, why do you need—if you even do, though I think we all feel that itch sometimes—validation that you have a right to your views? It shouldn't matter, right? Because at the end of the day, you live by your own conclusions, your own convictions, your own willpower, your own grind, and your own strength—regardless of what anyone else tells you.

Do you actually live out what you write about?

Do you truly believe that what you put down on paper changes the reality of the people reading it? Is it a yes, a no, or maybe just sometimes? And if it's the latter, under what specific circumstances does that happen?

Does what you read change *your* reality? Do you feel threatened or even a little bit shaken when you stumble upon a solid argument that totally dismantles your own stance? Do you ever find yourself feeling afraid for your own identity?

And once you've chewed on all that, answer this too:

Is there any concept of reality in history that wasn't championed by someone who struggled to find "solid proof"? And is there a single one that hasn't been torn down, or at least challenged by a counter-argument, up to this point?

What's even the point of chasing the objective, when the only thing we ever truly achieve at the end of the search is a subjective internal shift? Or maybe... maybe that's exactly the whole point. 😉

I'm genuinely curious to hear what you guys think...

Well, what else am I supposed to do with this magnifying glass of consciousness we call "focus," and this linguistic structure that is so perfectly suited for rambling about whatever is under the lens?

What you focus on, you will become... or so Buddha says. 😉

restlessbison4 said:swiftcobra15,

I want to go on a bit of a tangent regarding human needs, specifically looking at
human nature versus manufactured desires.

Everything you mentioned about these artificial needs is basically
something forced upon us just by being born into this world. It’s pretty self-evident.
But what’s truly bizarre is how people don't even stop to ask
why things are this way, or if they could actually be different. Honestly, people are
even willing to hurt others who disagree with them on these very topics,
even when those ideas threaten their own stability. Take religious wars, for instance.
Both sides have their faith, yet both religions essentially
place restrictions on the individual follower. Or you could look at any ideology—
communism, nationalism, all those other "-isms."
Maybe it’s just hardwired into our DNA to obey and follow someone "smarter"
than ourselves—someone who cooked up the rules and laid them down. How else can you explain
the fact that billions of people live almost identical lives? Is there even
an alternative out there?
When did this start? Maybe with the dawn of agriculture? Can we really "blame" farming
for steering civilization in this direction—where the resource holders or the owners of land and corporations
stand opposed to a workforce that, in reality, always works for someone else, never for themselves.
So, why did it happen? Was it for the sake of making life easier for the individual and the community?
Basically, the individual—the worker, someone who doesn't own the key resources—voluntarily
surrenders certain natural rights just so someone else, the owner, will grant them
access to resources, whether those are material or intangible (like the right to coexist
with other people).

Not quite. It really started with the birth of cities and the concept of currency. You see, cities were essentially a necessity for anyone wanting to maintain a paid military force. Soldiers have families, right? So, the easiest way to manage that is to build barracks where both the soldiers and their kin can settle down. But to pay those soldiers, you need money—something they can actually use to buy food, because nothing is growing inside those barracks walls.

Once the idea of money took hold and you could walk into a city and buy pretty much anything, merchants moved in too, hauling produce from the countryside into the urban centers. A pound of potatoes might not mean much to a farmer out in the sticks, but in a city where nothing grows, that potato becomes incredibly valuable. And here's the kicker... very quickly, you end up paying the military in potatoes (because whatever wages you give them immediately goes toward food), and eventually, the military just seizes the land that the farmers are working on. You basically end up in a loop where the farmers are effectively paying the military to stop burning their houses down, stealing their grain, and terrorizing their families, all while you sit back in the shade and profit off basic human greed.

It’s certainly not "human nature" to be a sheep, mindlessly following a shepherd straight to the slaughterhouse. People rarely went to war over high-minded ideals... it was almost always about cash, power, or social standing—and once those things were secured, they figured out how to monetize everything else. Once you move into a city, you become completely dependent on whoever controls the food supply, the money, and the jobs.

In short... they built us prison cells, and we practically moved into them voluntarily.

Lawrence Robinson5 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Check out this short lecture (about 25 minutes). I really think it serves as an excellent answer, a great supplement, or even a solid alternative to what you posted.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondB...watch/brin.php

The guy's name is David Brin, and here is a quote of his that hits the nail on the head:

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.”

swiftcobra15 said:self-alienated, if you please. "Alienated" makes it sound like it’s happening against his will, almost like some sort of 😁

self-alienated, if you please. "Alienated" makes it sound like it’s happening against his will, almost like some sort of 😁
I wouldn't put it quite like that, personally. At worst, you're just looking at an assist—but that's only if we're strictly counting individual stats... if we aren't, then I'd call that some pretty brilliant team improvisation. 😁

swiftcobra15 said:

The only thing missing here is one crucial word—if we're going by that logic, then he isn't an alienated individual. 🙂

self-alienated, if you please. "Alienated" makes it sound like it’s happening against his will, almost like some sort of 😁

Good grief... it feels like everyone here has their own personal dictionary when it comes to defining terms. It makes me wonder—if we’re using this kind of logic, are we supposed to include the ear tag, the metal stalls in the barn, and even the butcher when we talk about a cow? I mean, those would be the physical, social, and spiritual equivalents of the cow itself, right?

One of the biggest misconceptions out there—and honestly, it’s baked into how most people view existence—is this idea that we are separate, physical beings who need to "tame" nature and bend it to our will. Because our biological "operating system" is so incredibly sophisticated, we fall into this trap of thinking we’re somehow detached from the planet. A tree doesn't wake up thinking it exists independently of the Earth... and we really start to realize how silly that sounds the moment we try to leave the planet without hauling a little piece of home along with us in a pressurized tin can. But in our day-to-day lives, we just don't see it. We chop down forests to make paper for campaign posters, then print money to buy more land covered in trees. Most people think this is a brilliant way to live because, hey, they get a paycheck at the end of it, but all I want to know is when and to whom the Earth sold its territory—because right now, I'm being forced to pay rent just for the privilege of existing on it.

The whole concept of having an "ego" is just as destructive. When we spend our energy trying to coordinate or suppress something that isn't even fundamentally real... well, it's basically a life sentence with a guaranteed failure rate.

"Culture is man's defense mechanism against nature," says Erich Fromm.

I truly believe that's the common thread tying all of this together.