What is "Truth"?

Intuition is simply subconscious post-processing by your brain.

 

Not true. We perceive realty through our five senses, but that doesn't mean that reality doesn't exist outside of our five senses. If human beings didn't exist, reality would still exist - there just wouldn't be anyone around to perceive them.

 

Since the economy, at any given point in time, is largely zero sum, if the economy provides a life of grandeur for some, it must take away resources from others.

 

Well let us see:
"in·tu·i·tion
n.1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof. See Synonyms at reason.
2. An impression or insight gained by the use of this faculty"

And:

"per·cep·tion
n.1. a. The process of perceiving something with the senses: the perception of a faint sound.
b. An instance of this: sense perceptions.

2. a. The process or state of being aware of something: the perception of time.
b. Insight or knowledge gained by thinking: the perception that inheritance must be coded in DNA.
c. The capacity for such insight or knowledge: theories of how to enhance human perception.
d. An insight or point of knowledge: The article is full of astute perceptions.

3. An interpretation or impression; an opinion or belief: doctors working to change the public perception of certain diseases."

And;

"re·al·i·ty
(rē-ăl′ĭ-t&#275n. pl. re·al·i·ties 1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality."

Where is "intuition" and "reality" exactly alike in that they are categorically a "perception"? I am not seeing the connection that you are attempting to make.

 

Well 'faculty' is 'an inherent mental or physical power'.....and that itself is a perception.

Just as I said, our senses receive input which is decoded by our neural network. Therefore we 'perceive' reality.

Intuition is based on our perception of reality. Reality is defined by how we process sensory input. 'Truth' is what we agree is 'real.'

 

No.
gran•deur (ˈgræn dʒər, -dʒʊər)

n.
1. the quality or state of being grand: the grandeur of the Rocky Mountains.


state (stāt)
n.
1.
a. A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: The office was in a state of confusion.
b. A condition of being in a stage or form, as of structure, growth, or development: the fetal state.
c. A mental or emotional condition: in a manic state.

 

Well, if you really want to take it that far, then all thinking is just perception, and would render anything perceived by the senses to be nothing more than subjective renderings of what we 'think' we perceive. What a conundrum you have presented to be analyzed by all the readers.

No! That 'neural network' is part of the machinery that allows us to think and thinking is one of those inherent abilities that is nothing more than perception ... a subjective rendering of what we think is happening.

You mean how we think? But thinking is just an inherent ability that allows us to think that we see 'reality' when in fact all we see is our subjective rendering of what we think.

 

Correct.

Correct

Correct

 

Well, I am glad that you agree in all aspects of what I previously stated. That being the case, then I might also be expecting you to agree with the following.

Because everything is reduced to that subjective nature, then everything discussed on this forum and especially in this section of the forum are meaningless to the whole of the membership which participates in this section of the forum. Why? Because each of us think differently, therefore this section of the forum is laced with ambiguity, a co-mingling of thoughts brought on by the thinking process which is all subjective and therefore unable to show PROOF to one another regarding anything expressed in this section of the forum. Agree with that also?

 

Define 'differently.' Many of us are in agreement with how we analyze certain perceptions of reality. Our written prose itself is an agreement that certain symbols have certain agreed-upon meanings. Are they real? Yes they are as real as we perceive them to be. We live in a virtual reality.

Check this out...

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

 

The very fact that you had to ask me to define "differently" is evidence that we think differently. If we did not think differently, then you would have known the answer to the question. But if you insist: www.tfd.com/differently .Define "real". So we live in a 'virtual reality'. That is a pretty cool analysis. I don't believe that I will attempt to refute that position that you have taken, because of the definitions of 'virtual reality': However; I will stipulate that the so-called reality in which we live is 'virtual'.... Not related to computer programming.
virtual:
[h=2]vir·tu·al[/h] (vûr′cho͞o-əl)adj.1. Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo.

2. Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text."

 

Yes, I am seeking either an agreement or non-agreement as to the definition. We may think differently regarding some issues but agree on others. Each human being is an individual but also part of a greater whole. Consciousness allows us to make choices that affect the whole. Choices that enhance the whole are incorporated. Those that don't are discarded.

So you define 'different' as having absolutely no common agreement among two human beings? That can't be. Impossible because we are part of a greater consciousness. Our 'differences' are just choices we make about how to process the data we receive.

Did you check out the video?

 

Amazing. I provide you with a list of definitions given by a dictionary. You, decide to pick a single definition out of the group. Good guess on your part. My reason for this is simple: During my life, I have learned absolutely nothing about you. Heck.. I don't even know your real name, I know nothing of your experiences in life. So it is not just a difference in how we process data, it also involves the source of the data being processed and the quality of that data. You also allude to a "greater consciousness". I would have labeled it as a 'universal mind' or 'the Mind of God'. Oh well, labels are labels. Neither of us can show proof that a 'greater consciousness' even exists, so speculating on what it is or what it can do or even what it means, is just that ,,,, speculation,,,, guesswork. Admittedly, it would be nice to be able to declare with absolute certainty and conviction of heart that we did know, but we don't know the expansiveness of 'mind'.

I will go check out the video right now. I got busy with some other things last evening and did not have the opportunity. Will give you my thoughts on it during the next writing to you.

 

So far, I have watched the first 1/2 hour of the video. It is impressive, as I will touch on in just a moment, but for the most part, it is rather dogmatic. He uses an approach of making demands to the listener. "you have to...." is a phrase he uses quite frequently and in using that phrase, he is essentially saying that you are obligated to accept his assertions as true. My question with regard to those demands, is "Why?" Why do I "have to" accept what he is saying as true? As for the impressive part. During the first segment (speaking about the particle and the double slit experiment), the particle could be the presence of God as well as just the illusion of some particle which cannot be seen.

 

I think this is the 1st correct thing you said.
Religion and Philosophy are meaningless. They only serve to give people something to talk about who are bored.

 

Well gee that says a lot about the Atheists and other non-theists on this forum. Their lives must be so shallow and uninvolved that they have literally nothing left to do with their time than to spend it on forums such as this one spewing forth their share of meaningless drivel. One would think that people who are so concerned with the world situation, who allegedly care so much about humanity, object to hunger and poverty and neglect of children, that those people would have plenty to do that would eliminate boredom. Guess they are not so interested in humanity as they would like for others to believe.

 

You are taking one quote from one user and using it to generalize about all of the other atheists on the forum? I thought you were fond of a guy who said something about treating others as you want to be treated. Guess not.

 

When in Rome (the PF ), do as the Romans (PF members) do.
"Religion and Philosophy are meaningless. They only serve to give people something to talk about who are bored."
Are you on this forum talking about 'religion and philosophy'? Yes! Then the comment made by the other poster is also applicable to you.

 

So you've rewritten Jesus's words to be "do unto others as they do unto you". I'm not a Christian, but I prefer the original.

He doesn't speak for me, no matter how often we agree. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Unless you want us to treat all theists as a monolithic group based on the words of single theist users, don't treat others this way.

 

Did I say those were put in the forum to supplant the sayings of Jesus? No! Nice try but epic fail on your part. I do have a secular side of my life and am prone to exercise the rights associated with that secular side of life.

Then you should caution that other poster and advise him/her that he/she does not have the authority to speak for you. Until you do, and until you make a protest to that other poster, then I can only assume that you are OK with him/her making expressions that reflect upon your being. In other words, take your complaint to the originating source.

 

Like we all assume you to are ok with the statements, being reflected on your behalf, that all children, babies, and fetuses were cannibalized in noah's time.
Something I've said to you repeatedly and now you confirm that belief. on mine.

How do you know he didn't PM me to tell me I don't speak for him or others?
And he never clicked like on my post either, like you have more than 1 time on said theory of cannibalism.

 

As my memory serves me, there is no permissions granted to anyone on this forum to speak on my behalf. If someone makes such a claim that they are speaking on my behalf, they are fabricating a lie. I am the only person on this forum that speaks for me. Now. Show proof of your claim that someone is speaking on my behalf.

'something' is a rather vague and ambiguous way to bring attention to a particular subject matter or context. Want to try again?

Did I suggest that the did not PM you? I click like on many thread that are created. Some of which contain content that I do not agree with 100%, but the 'like' button is not labeled to say "click here if you agree 100% with the content of this post". So, clicking the like button can be for any sundry of reasons. Your comments are reflecting only what you want to believe and want others to believe. So, I also believe that you are off in fantasy land somewhere and are attempting to manifest your fantasies but are not having any luck in your attempts.

 

Thanks for your input in the video. I have watched many of his videos multiple times and, if you ask me, he makes a strong case for God. For instance, he says that before the big bang, something was holding everything together and he claims that 'something' is 'unknowable' although he decries belief as a negative journey. The reason I watch his videos is that he comes from an atheistic point of view but, to me, ends up making a strong argument for a deity.

 

Careful, your posting hypocrisy again.
You make a claim I am speaking for others. Did I ever say I speak for others, No.
Something is not vague, if you can follow posts.

- - - Updated - - -

Many strong points can be made to a deity.
For it to be a certain specific one is where things start to fall apart. Or one must believe a certain way and do certain things for some deity.

 

Do you even know the literal meaning of the word 'hypocrisy'. Even though it has been published on this forum by myself on more than one occasion, you still seem to have a hard time grasping the meaning.