Posts by fadedbison17

placidranger said:Look, my angle here is to identify the specific advantages gained from a believer's mindset—and then see if we can replicate those exact results without invoking any supernatural intervention.

I’m drawing a distinction between a rational person (someone who cross-references everything against their own internal sense of truth) and a believer (someone who accepts certain facts as true despite a lack of empirical evidence).

Here's a case in point: there was a study involving rats swimming in murky water—meaning they couldn't see through it (I don't have the link handy, but I'll dig it up if necessary).
They split them into two groups. The first group swam in a pool that had a small island just beneath the surface where they could rest. The second group had no such refuge. Whenever a rat got exhausted and started to sink, the researchers would pull it out.
After a while—once everyone had rested, eaten, and slept—they put them back in the pool. This time, there was no island. Now, here is the interesting part: the rats from the first group kept swimming for twice as long as the ones from the second group. The theory is that because they expected to find that island, they possessed a sort of "faith" that kept them going.

So, it stands to reason that belief in God—or some form of external assistance—provides certain situational advantages that others simply don't have.

In that case, relying on God or some external savior is just self-delusion. It's an illusion that keeps people thinking they have way more control over their lives than they actually do.

Going back to your scenario—let's say instead of rats, we're talking about people swimming in the ocean (a pool would be way too small anyway).

Most people know—or at least realize—that the ocean isn't infinite and that land exists somewhere. If someone were out there for a long time, they'd be thinking constantly. Either like, "just hold on a bit longer, help is right around the corner," or "I'm thirsty, I'm alone, I'm gonna die."

No matter what they're thinking, salvation (an island, a boat, a plane, whatever) isn't going to magically appear just because they thought about it.
The actual result of their mindset might be whether they swim faster and last longer because they stayed positive, or if they just give up on day one and float there waiting to be eaten by sharks... 🙂

Once you separate thought from reality and accept that humans have limited control over their lives, the conclusion is pretty clear. 😉
A rational person—someone who accepts those limits—is going to live based on knowledge and logic, focusing on what they can actually influence. Like, "I can swim a bit more, I've still got energy, maybe there's land past the next wave..." They know there are things totally out of their hands (like sharks, death, illness, etc.).
But a believer—someone who accepts facts without proof—doesn't have a clear line between where they end and the world begins. They think they have more control over the universe than they do. Because of that, when they lose control, they try to force a result (believing in divine help, praying for rescue). Like, "if I'm good, God will love me, God will reward me, I need a boat to save me..." Whatever happens to that person, it would have happened regardless of their prayers—so there's no actual advantage.

Laura Murphy said:I honestly don't get how some of you can claim that faith isn't just a byproduct of a lack of critical thinking.
Couldn't we just as easily argue the exact opposite, right?

And I really don't understand this constant urge to philosophize about believers, acting like they're all just being manipulated... or aren't particularly bright...
Besides, it feels pretty strange how almost everyone here shares this same philosophy driven purely by logic, yet you're still trying to force faith—which is inherently illogical—into those same rigid little boxes.

Look, try defining "faith" yourself—specifically in relation to thought processes. How do you actually reach the conclusions you accept through faith? Let's say someone is a devout Christian—did they use pure logic to conclude that Jesus is the Son of God? Nah, they had to accept it as fact—basically by not overthinking it.

My posts above were just trying to answer the actual question in the thread—why people (believers) act the way they do and what the benefits are. I'm not out here trying to explain faith itself, and even if I were, I wouldn't be preaching to some zealot—I'd be talking to someone who actually cares to learn. And like I said before, I know plenty of believers I truly respect and admire, so let's not generalize...

So, let's get back to the point... what are your answers to the questions in the thread? 😉

placidranger said:Sure, some things lack logic or practical utility, but take prayer, for instance...

People who pray to a deity—genuinely believing help is coming—tend to carry themselves with more self-assurance. That boost gives them a better shot at whatever they're aiming for. The word confidence actually stems from having "faith" (correct me if I'm wrong on that etymology). They're less likely to throw in the towel when things get rough.
Plus, there's a certain merit to the habit of giving thanks for what you have; it forces a focus on the positives.

One thing though—we're talking about an advantage here, right? But compared to what?
I'm looking at the difference between a rational guy (someone who checks in with themselves first—sticking to what they know is true) versus a believer (someone who accepts certain facts as truth without any actual proof).

It kind of feels like you're implying that anyone looking at their future through a positive lens *has* to be a believer...

steelridge58 said:I can't really give you a proper answer right this second because I need to wrap my head around all of this, and honestly, it’s a lot to process. 🙂 even if I wanted to,

Anyway, if you want to dive deeper, maybe start a new thread about the relationship between consciousness and reality so we don't clutter up this specific discussion. Plus, I still owe you an answer regarding those apples we talked about.

🙂 So yeah, let me know if you want to go there.

Just sleep on it, no rush 🙂
Good call (on starting a new thread), I'll think about it..

Chris Peterson53 said:It’s obvious you have some pretty warped view of faith!
Personally, I am a believer, but I don't belong to any organized religion!
I think and live by a system of moral principles quite clearly (as far as I'm able).
Where on earth did you get the idea that believers don't think?
We don't think in your way, but we certainly think (and speak) about everything.
As for being in touch with a higher power—for believers, that isn't some eccentricity; it's a fact.
And as for having social privileges, those only exist if you follow the deceptions of organized religions. Faith actually contributes to the quality of life in ways you obviously won't grasp easily. And contrary to your claim, faith improves us as human beings!

Like I already said, those were just my answers to the questions in this thread, not an attack on believers (go back and read my last post).

Now, let's hear your explanation on how faith improves quality of life and all your other takes on the topic.

steelridge58 said:Fair enough. So, I did a little digging through some texts I found, and here is what I came across:

Human consciousness seems to involve two conflicting concepts: the "I" as a subject and the "I" as an object. The subjective "I" is the pure form, which stands in contrast to the objective "I"—that material element—and together, they form a single being.

What I was trying to point out to you earlier wasn't that the person isn't an object because they observe, but rather that the very act of observing is something that flows directly from the subject. Basically, when a person perceives objective reality as something distinct from themselves—something they are constantly interacting with—they aren't just an object; they are the subject doing the perceiving and understanding of that world. Objects essentially serve as the bridge for our perception.

And honestly, you can't really split the real world into "objective" and "subjective" pieces without ignoring how everything is so deeply interconnected and tangled together into one single, unified field. That field is what makes up the world, and it's also the space where I exist.

But if I'm reading you right, the core logic behind why you view a human as an object within objective reality seems to be this: since you start with the idea that all of reality is objective, it follows logically for you that humans must also be objects as part of that larger whole.

On that note, I thought you might find this interesting ( regarding the concept of the embodied being ):

I am not this body, nor am I merely a human being or a persona; instead, it is through this body, as a human being, that I exist in a world alongside other "I's."

The human "I," through their physical body, exists in a world where self-actualization is only possible alongside other "I's" who exist in much the same way through their own bodies.

This "I" would be the pure subject. Consciousness of this self is always present, accompanying every single act of will and every moment of realization.

p.s. I didn't address your other points because I feel like I've already rambled on for far too long.

It's not too long, but you definitely opened a massive can of worms here 🙂 Talking about the relationship between consciousness and reality—or if that even exists at all.

Generally speaking, there are two ways to look at it.
One is the subjective perspective, where consciousness is primary. This view suggests consciousness actually creates reality—or multiple realities—meaning nobody can ever know anything for certain.
Personally, I don't buy that. I lean toward the second one—the objective perspective—where reality is primary. It basically says reality is everything that exists, and humans just use consciousness to perceive it.

That "I" you mentioned is consciousness—the thing doing the observing. Consciousness looks outward (trees, rocks, other people...) and inward (fleeting feelings, memories, a pain in your leg, etc.).

Consciousness isn't separate from reality (everything that exists); it doesn't exist on its own. For consciousness to be aware of itself, it first has to be aware of *something*. And by "something," I mean anything—a cigarette, letters on a screen, a thought, a slight feeling of pleasure, heat in your body... Only after consciousness perceives something can it become aware of itself through that experience.
Without something (without reality), there is no consciousness. Consciousness relies on reality.

So, consciousness is a part of reality, not outside of it.
Since consciousness is part of reality, it's just like everything else in the universe—it's objective.

From what I've seen, most people dodge an objective perspective just because they're scared of losing their "humanity." But honestly? It's the exact opposite—embracing that objectivity actually helps you grasp reality better, which leads to a deeper understanding of consciousness and its quirks... and that naturally leads to much better mental health.

nimbleharbor21 said:

fadedbison17 says:
In order for a believer to maintain the illusion that they know [/I] something an atheist doesn't (since being an unbeliever supposedly denies them access to "higher" knowledge), they just manufacture facts and justifications out of thin air. They come up with excuses like: the believer knows what happens after death (so therefore they know how to live their life), or that the believer is in touch with a higher power (meaning they don't have to deal with reality), and so on...

... they don't know, they just believe.

The typical atheist cliché—that believers blindly swallow dogma without ever using their brains—is really just a convenient way for the skeptic to justify their own disbelief: I can think for myself, right?
But a believer who builds their faith on a constant pursuit of Truth finds their perspective rooted in something indestructible.
As a believer, my first step is always to reason through it, and then I reach an understanding that aligns with the teachings of the Church.

You're assuming I have a problem with believers, but you couldn't be more wrong. You’re "clichéing" me by reading my post and deciding I'm someone I'm not.

Just to be clear, I'm an atheist. It's never my goal to insult believers—honestly, I know several people who are religious that I really respect and look up to.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's get back to the actual point. Answer the prompt—what do you think the answers are? Give me some reasons. Thanks. 😉

nimbleharbor21 said:Man, what kind of post is this??? What does imagination have to do with anything? Grab an elementary school textbook, learn some basic tenets of American Christianity, and then maybe you can act like a mature adult when discussing them.

Geez, what a woman... If your post is supposed to be an act of maturity, I'll pass. And for the record, I've already studied Catholic doctrine pretty deeply. Thanks for the advice, though.

placidranger said:I sometimes wonder why this concept of a creator—this all-powerful entity—remains so incredibly stubborn against the passage of time. It persists everywhere, despite massive cultural divides and the fact that ancient civilizations had virtually zero contact with one another.
The most obvious answer that keeps coming to mind is psychological utility. People who believe seem to experience certain mental benefits, which serves as their motivation to pass the idea down—or if you prefer, to spread the meme—to their children and anyone else unacquainted with it.
I’ll skip the whole "truth in numbers" argument—the notion that if enough people believe it, it must be true. First, it's logically flawed. Second, I’m an atheist. Third, whether something actually exists is irrelevant to my point; what matters is the practical advantage believers hold over atheists in their day-to-day lives.

In your view, what specific advantages does a belief system—say, Catholicism, Buddhism, or Islam—actually provide? Is life simply easier when you're a believer?

Believers have this weird edge where they pretend they’ve got an answer for basically everything. While an atheist usually just shrugs and says "I don't know"—which actually leaves room to learn stuff—believers don't feel the need to do that... Not sure I'd call that a real advantage...

To keep that illusion going—that he’s actually in control—a believer basically has to... well, you know how it goes... knows... An atheist—since they’re lacking that "extra" insight you get from being a believer—just ends up making stuff up to fill the gaps... finding whatever facts or justifications they can pull out of thin air. It all just turns into excuses, like: "Oh, a believer..." knows... What happens after you kick the bucket—I mean, according to Him... knows... How to live... basically, a believer stays connected to... Wait, what was that? You're just dropping one word? I'm lost... anyway, what's up? Just sheer force—which basically means he can just ignore reality if he feels like it... etc.

I feel like needing faith is pretty much the same as needing philosophy—it’s just that human drive to find a solid system of morals and values to live by while navigating society...
Why does faith stay so bulletproof against the test of time? Honestly—it’s because people who believe just... don't let themselves think too hard about it. It's way easier to just grab a pre-packaged solution, even if it’s thousands of years old and totally out of touch with how things actually work today. Instead of leveling up their lives to fit the modern world, they end up dragging their entire lifestyle backward just to make sure it fits the mold of their religion... turns out that's a lot less work.

What are the perks of being a believer compared to an atheist? A more developed imagination—though I wouldn't exactly call that a "perk" when it comes to actually improving your quality of life...

steelridge58 said:

I honestly don't know if I should be laughing at myself or just feeling a little embarrassed because I always seem to find myself overthinking these things until my head starts spinning, but I really wanted to jump in here and share what's been on my mind lately regarding this whole situation. It feels like we’re all just trying to navigate this massive, complicated landscape without a map, and sometimes I feel like I'm stumbling around in the dark while everyone else seems to have found their footing, though that might just be my own clumsy perception talking. Anyway, I've been thinking about how much effort we put into these discussions and whether we're actually getting anywhere or if we're just circling the same drain, but even if we are, there's something strangely comforting about knowing we're all in this together, even when it feels completely overwhelming. kaže:
I’ve always felt that we aren't just some isolated observers floating through life, because when you really stop to think about it, a person is actually an integral part of objective reality itself—meaning that the moment you start perceiving the world around you, you cease being a mere subject and effectively become an object within that very reality.

fadedbison17, am I totally off base if I suggest that an object only becomes a subject at the exact moment it begins to perceive reality? It feels to me like that’s the whole point—that by using all those cognitive faculties that define its very existence, it transcends being just a mere thing or a simple occurrence; without the capacity to actually sense and feel, it would just be nothing more than a hollow presence in the world.

I honestly don't know why I even bother bringing these things up sometimes, because it feels like I'm just shouting into a void, but I really think we need to sit down and actually talk about how much everything is changing around us. It’s one of those things where you look back at how simple things used to be—and I mean truly, genuinely simple—and then you look at the chaos of today and realize how quickly the ground has shifted under our feet. I might be overthinking this, or maybe I'm just being overly dramatic, but there's a real sense that we're losing that core connection to what actually matters, and it honestly breaks my heart a little bit to see it happening in real-time. kaže:
Our cognitive abilities are really just the defining traits of being a human being existing as an object within the actual, physical reality of our world.

That’s actually exactly why I don’t look at him as some kind of object.

So, let me see if I'm following you—it sounds like a person can't really be an object because they're conscious? And consciousness is just one of those things that makes a human (as an object within reality) what it is.

Just to dive a bit deeper into the logic here so I'm clear on my use of the word object. From here on out, I’m gonna use the term entity. Basically, anything that exists in reality exists as *something*—something specifically defined. Anything at all is an entity. An entity has an identity (meaning it has specific traits; think Aristotelian law of identity: A is A).
For instance:
An apple is red, round, and smooth.
A human breathes, bleeds if cut, possesses consciousness, and has cognitive abilities.
Both examples describe the identity of an entity.

A person acts as a subject of perception during introspection—you know, when they're looking inward, feeling stuff, thinking, imagining, remembering, etc.
Even then, the person is still aware of objective reality; their inner world is just a characteristic of their consciousness. Being conscious is part of being human, and humans are part of reality. The fact that we can look inward doesn't negate reality—if anything, reality "allows" for that introspection to happen.

There isn't any other way for a person to be conscious besides through their own consciousness.
Might also be worth noting that humans make mistakes and aren't all-knowing—those are just more characteristics of our consciousness too...

steelridge58 said:When it comes down to the whole debate over what is objective and what is subjective—and I really hope this fits within the scope of this discussion—I honestly find myself wondering how any piece of knowledge can truly be considered objective when it’s fundamentally born from a perspective that is inherently subjective (I know, I know, I've used the word "always" far too many times in this post 🙂), because, at its core, all perception emerges from the immeasurable field of the individual subject.

What I’m wrestling with now, looking at things from this angle, is this:

The realm of the objective is inextricably linked to the subject. Or rather, it's the limit of what a subject can actually reach, based on how much they are intellectually and intuitively capable of grasping the complex fabric of an objectively subjective reality. Since we are dealing with something immeasurable, the human being—the subject—will always serve as the yardstick for that reality, simply because we can't measure or perceive it from any vantage point outside of ourselves.

On the flip side, I tend to believe that objective reality (though one has to wonder what that actually looks like?) exists independently of us as subjects; in other words, that when a person dissolves—through death—they become part of that objective reality and merge with it.
After all, if we weren't set apart and placed in relation to the world—even if I'm just using these spatial metaphors to try and make sense of my thoughts—how else could we possibly perceive and witness the world while simultaneously discovering our own place within it?

But then again, what does any of this actually mean?

p.s. regarding that quantum physics stuff you bring up so often in your posts—which I'm actually pretty interested in myself—and what you wrote in that thread about time, I might have a question for you, but let me chew on it for a bit until I figure out how to phrase it properly...

Humans are part of objective reality, and they stop being subjects and become objects the moment they observe it.
While observing reality, a person acts like an object, possessing its own specific characteristics—just like anything else—and those are their cognitive abilities.

Those cognitive traits are just properties of the human acting as an object within reality.

Hope this isn't coming on too strong:
How could a human actually *be* subjective? If they thought: "Nope, I don't care about reality or what I see, hear, and feel; things will just be whatever I imagine them to be."
Even then, the relationship between reality and the human wouldn't change—only the human's conscious relationship to it would. Reality and the person would still function by their own objective rules (you can't wish yourself into flight by flapping your arms, and that annoying car engine won't stop running just because you decided it should be quiet).

Edward Flores4 said:What you're describing there is consistency, not objectivity.

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.

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.

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... 😛

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...

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 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.

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...

Doing my best...

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...

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...

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 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...

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...

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...

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...

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.

swiftcobra15 said:

I think the concept of a state—like a tribe—started out as just a set of rules to help people live together more smoothly in one area. People didn't have clear guidelines, so they made deals and picked reps to enforce them.

Also, I don't think digging into exactly how or where it all started is going to give us anything juicy. It's pretty obvious that through history, people have been hunting for the best ethical framework to build a society on... and what we have now is just the best version humans have cooked up so far. We need fresh ideas.

Was actually reading this piece the other day about free societies, socialism, capitalism, and our spiritual needs—this article. It’s split into 7 parts in that previous link, but honestly, it's better to read it part-by-part right here because there are some cool links that got stripped from the combined version.

restlessbison4 said:Quote:

restlessbison4 says: In today’s supposedly "advanced" society, we aren't living—we're just fulfilling manufactured desires: We chug mass-produced sodas, eat processed junk, wear synthetic fabrics made in some factory far away, and cram ourselves into concrete high-rise monstrosities. Since manufacturing fake needs is basically the core engine of modern American capitalism, these "needs" just keep multiplying endlessly. There's no such thing as being truly satisfied when the goalposts are always moving.

Maybe these manufactured cravings are becoming the only things the market can actually deliver, mostly because anything genuinely 'natural' is getting harder to find. And if you do find it? God, the price tag.
The system doesn't actually care about satisfying anyone. Capitalism, by its very nature, is a need-generator. For this whole setup to stay upright, it has to convince us all that we're constantly lacking something.
The real question is—how does His Majesty, Capitalism, pull off such a perfect con?

I don't think capitalism actually convinces>> anyone--capitalism isn't a person, after all.
It's just a social framework built on recognizing individual rights, including property rights, where everything is privately owned.
Competition—whether it's for power or just wealth—shows up in pretty much every society, even totalitarian ones (where you won't find capitalism). Capitalism just brings a specific flavor of competition along with a bunch of other useful social traits.

So, how does it "succeed" so well?
Simple: there's no coercion involved. Instead, people are free to produce, sell, or hold onto their goods because they own them. That incentive alone is what keeps everyone pushing and expanding the system...

rowdyhawk99 said:Every book has its own page count, and every language has its own specific number of words available to play with. It makes me wonder... will we eventually hit a limit? Will there ever come a day when every possible story has been told and every combination of words has been used, meaning no new books can ever be written again?

Your whole premise about words being the primary factor is flawed (logic isn't quite clicking there).
Words—you know, concepts and abstractions—are just labels we slap onto things in the real world.

If you strip this down to its core, the real question is: is any human actually omniscient?

Now you can go ahead and answer 😉