Do religious experiences contradict each other or do religious interpretations of these experiences contradict one another?
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
That's an excellent question. I'm a Christian believer but I've never really had a "religious experience" ( depending on how you define "religious experience" ). And what do you mean by "contradict each other" ? From my understanding, since we are finite, limited human beings ( limited knowledge ), the implication seems to be that most of our experiences are contradictory to the experience of others. We don't have an adequate knowledge to understand religious experiences. We are sentient creatures, so our feelings and interpretation of these feelings influence our reasoning in regards to experience. What do you think? I appreciate your questions because I need to think better. Peace...
@mujahidkhalfan5246 Жыл бұрын
The “many” experiences, are “many” because they are not identical to each other, and since they are not identical to each other, necessarily exclude each other. However, the Substance of all experiences, is One, and as such is All Inclusive because it it excludes all exclusions.
@picksalot1 Жыл бұрын
The best definition of ever heard of absolute reality is: That which exists, and is not limited by space, time, or type, nor is it subject to destruction. To explain further, it is everywhere, always, and everything, without being limited by it's appearance, just as Space may appear small in a cup, large in a room, and unfathomable in the Universe. It is useful to have some adjectives when describing reality, as they can provide important distinctions, such as subjective reality, objective reality, empirical reality, and absolute reality, to bring clarity to the topic.
@ENGRAINING Жыл бұрын
all those things are part of the absolute reality
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
Funny way of saying existence is a self sustaining ontologically independent substance with many inherent interrelated aspects/modes.
@abytebit Жыл бұрын
Thoughts is the Ultimate Reality
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
@@abytebit what is a thought? Sounds like you subscribe to process ontology
@Satyamaargi2 ай бұрын
Definition of Brahman of Vedanta.
@cfunlearn Жыл бұрын
In the end, Robert says that saying that the reality can not be captured through categories of thought is like a defence mechanism. I think, the best way to approach this problem is through a careful dialectic examination of thought itself. It is done in Mulmadhyamika-Karika by Nagarjuna, where he exposes the limitations of thought and shows how the reality can not be captured by intellect and it is beyond the concepts created by the thought.
@renko9067 Жыл бұрын
Most mainstream religions are misinterpretations of what the mystics have said. But when you look closely, the mystics are in complete agreement. This is undoubtable. Modern day Zen and Vedanta teachers have postulated that quantum mechanic theorists will one day grasp what the masters have been saying for millennia. I believe this is starting to happen, however, a scientist living in the desert may work out the math for an ocean but will not understand it like a blue-collar worker who swims in it every day. What the mystics teach is very simple really: through proper meditation, subject and object drop away and momentarily you are what this really is. Then time and practice is needed to make full sense of it. And there is no doubt. The mystics of every religion are in complete agreement about it. You either get it or you don’t.
@scottc3165 Жыл бұрын
This is the closest interview that I've seen on this channel to describe the indescribable. We all experience reality at every moment in time, we just don't recognize it, so we pass it over. A special spiritual experience may mean you came close, but because that experience came and went, reality again was passed over.
@100percentSNAFU Жыл бұрын
To me, ultimate reality would be knowing all the answers to all the questions that remain unanswered, or unanswerable in our current existence. Maybe this life is but one small step towards achieving this.
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
Excellent observations. I'm a Christian believer and I tend to agree with you. However since I believe only God is all-knowing, some questions that we currently ponder will probably remain unanswered. But I like how you said that "this life is but one small step". Respectfully from Florida USA
@dongshengdi773 Жыл бұрын
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Nurture vs Nature . Theism vs Naturalism. Newtonian vs Einstein. They're actually both , Not either or . We are both spiritual and physical beings , same as the nature of the universe
@Satyamaargi2 ай бұрын
शौनको ह वै महाशालोऽङ्गिरसं विधिवदुपसन्नः पप्रच्छ । कस्मिन्नु भगवो विज्ञाते सर्वमिदं विज्ञातं भवतीति ॥ ३ ॥ śaunako ha vai mahāśālo'ṅgirasaṃ vidhivadupasannaḥ papraccha | kasminnu bhagavo vijñāte sarvamidaṃ vijñātaṃ bhavatīti || 3 || English translation: Saunaka, a great grihasta(householder), having duly approached Angiras(a sage), questioned him “What is that, O lord which being known,rest all becomes known.” ~ an excerpt from vedantic text Mundak Upanishad
@jamesmckenzie4572 Жыл бұрын
I'm grateful not to carry the burden of faith as learning is an experience I cannot compromise.
@mrshankerbillletmein491 Жыл бұрын
What do we know without faith? The universe began to exist or it did not, life came from non living matter. What do we really know?
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
But since we are finite, limited creatures, how can we claim "the burden of faith" ? I think faith and learning have a strong correlation. I'm not trying to belittle education. But from my understanding, I don't know it all and I never will ( plus I'm getting old ! ) Peace...
@100percentSNAFU Жыл бұрын
Faith isn't just limited to religion. "Hypothesis" and "theory" are just scientific terms for faith. Religion is faith in a deity, science is faith in the unknown, making educated guesses and theories, many of which can not and will not ever be known, e.g. the origin of the universe, the size of the universe, etc.
@peweegangloku6428 Жыл бұрын
The book of Acts chapter 17 verses 26 and 27 in the Bible say: "26 And he made out of one man every nation of men to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he decreed the appointed times and the set limits of where men would dwell, 27 so that they would seek God, if they might grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us." If one is honestly, humbly, sincerely groping, feeling around as a blind man for God, that person will, no doubt, find him.
@JoyceJohnson99 Жыл бұрын
I agree that if one is seeking God like a blind person, they will find it. Some use the word God, Universal Intelligence, Nirvana, or Transcendence. As God transcends time and space, it also transcends our verbal and institutional constructs, which our human minds need to grope for that which is ineffable, and indeed the Deepest or Ultimate Reality.
@peweegangloku6428 Жыл бұрын
@@JoyceJohnson99 Yes it is the obvious truth that humans are actually blind to many things, even physical things like gravitational wave patterns. We can only deduce their existence. How much less spiritual realities!
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
@@peweegangloku6428I appreciate your comments. Thanks.
@brendangreeves3775 Жыл бұрын
Change is necessary and is fundamental. Logic determines that the absolute state is impossible. The dynamic relative state is fundamental. Quantum flux fields of potentiality, governed by constraints, manifest as what we call nature. Essentially it’s about process. There is a creative process, but no creator.
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
Sounds like process ontology. Are you insinuating that becoming gives rise to being or becoming is grounded in being or maybe you are claiming there is no being, only becoming. Are you also a platonist?
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
But why do you say "There is a creative process, but no Creator"? I'm not very educated in the sciences but I don't think a scientific process called nature can negate a Creator? Is that basically what you are saying? Respectfully....
@brendangreeves3775 Жыл бұрын
@@johnbrzykcy3076What we call nature is not about things,and things being created. It’s about about dynamic relationships, governed by constraints that arise in process. Logic determines outcomes, not a Creator.
@Resmith18SR Жыл бұрын
And no matter what we conjecture or believe about what Ultimate Reality is, it doesn't matter whether we get it right or completely right or not. Science and Scientific knowledge is the best and most accurate knowledge we have of the Universe and despite our sensory and intellectual limitations we will always strive to make progress and improve on that knowledge.
@Earthad23 Жыл бұрын
Science doesn’t answer any of these questions, the question we want an answer to is who am “I”?
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
The "I" is simply a set of physical events, it is not a thing, it is dynamic in nature. It is an ongoing set of processes.
@Resmith18SR Жыл бұрын
Why is the question who am I more important or even just as important as the question of what is the origin of the entire Universe and it's physical laws?
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
@@Resmith18SR why would the initial state of the Universe be important?
@Resmith18SR Жыл бұрын
@@CMVMic The study of the origins of the Cosmos is important because it reveals things like Black Holes, Dark Matter, and what the possible fate of our Universe will be. Why is the question to "Who Am I" so important? In terms of both time and space the entire human species is inconsequential in relation to the Universe and other galaxies. What is it specifically don't you know already about who you are?
@Earthad23 Жыл бұрын
@@Resmith18SR It’s important because without the awareness, the rest of it has no meaning whatsoever. The origins and the “I” might be the same thing.
@catherinemoore9534 Жыл бұрын
What is so different between a spiritual revelation and a scientific description of reality is the inclusion of the personal, the unique experience which is nonetheless universal in its expression.
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
What do you mean by "universal in it's expression" ? Thanks
@janjolley9524 Жыл бұрын
Very insightful. It appears to me that there is a problem with the word ‘religion ‘ , as it is used by powerful groups to wield power and make money. I would rather concentrate on the word ‘spiritual’ experience in this discussion. Despite all the conflicts between different religions, they mostly share some basic common beliefs: that there is a higher power beyond Human understanding and that people should be loving towards one another. Different Interpretations of religious text will always be used to create conflict. The fact that such a large percentage of humanity have some belief in a God seems to me to suggest that it can not be so easily dismissed by Science. Science deals in physical facts and cannot deal with what it describes as ‘emotion’.
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
I'm a Christian believer and I think your comments are excellent. Thanks.
@100percentSNAFU Жыл бұрын
The more I learn of both science and spirituality, the more I see how they compliment each other rather than conflict.
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
@@100percentSNAFU I agree with you.
@peterells1720 Жыл бұрын
Many thanks for this. John Hick is a wonderful theologian. Two of my favourite books of his are: "Evil and the God of Love" - a book about suffering that avoids complacency; and ""The Rainbow of Faiths: Critical Dialogues on Religious Pluralism".
@ericjohnson6665 Жыл бұрын
On trusting science vs. trusting experience - did Robert consult science to trust that people have personalities or did he trust his personal experience of them? I'm just sayin'... Significant because our Divine Father-friend has a personality too, which we can, and should, have an interpersonal relationship with. It's outside the realm of "science."
@TheUltimateSeeds Жыл бұрын
I suggest the *"Ultimate"* reality consists of two fundamental features. The first being a singular substance (in the spirit of Spinoza's *"oneness"* substance) that is an amalgam of the essence of life and that of the infinitely malleable (holographic-like) substance that life (consciousness) uses to create what consciousness generally refers to as "reality." And the second feature of, again, *"Ultimate"* reality is an infinite arena of *absolute nothingness* that will forever make room for whatever life and consciousness creates - even if that creation consists of new individualizations of life and consciousness.
@NeverTalkToCops1 Жыл бұрын
"Ultimate" is a trap word. Don't be bamboozled by people who just throw out hyperbole.
@TheUltimateSeeds Жыл бұрын
@@NeverTalkToCops1 But in the context of the *"ALL-THAT-IS"* there truly does exist an ultimate explanation (an ultimate TRUTH) to it all. And the fact that there are clueless fools who try to bamboozle us with hyperbole, doesn't negate the existence of that higher (or "Ultimate") truth of reality.
@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Жыл бұрын
@@NeverTalkToCops1Don’t bamboozled by people who abuse the word “bamboozled.” There’s nothing silly about an explanation ending PSR satisfying explanation for being itself.
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
@@TheUltimateSeedsexistence is ontologically independent, it requires no explanation. It is a brute fact
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturnsthe untamed version of the psr is false.
@phuzbrain Жыл бұрын
A very Wise Man
@raywkilleen Жыл бұрын
It seems concepts separate one from ultimate reality, including this very concept
@johnsgarage6622 Жыл бұрын
If you cannot measure the so called 'real' then this sounds like allot of conjecture.
@stephenkagan Жыл бұрын
There is certainly something to what you are saying. And yet what we can measure in this century and call real is quite different from what we could measure and call real in previous Millenia. Now that does not mean we are free to say anything we imagine is real but caution may be recommended, don't you think?
@kallianpublico7517 Жыл бұрын
Does science really chase consistency, or just a certain type of consistency? What would be the difference between a scientist's description of quantum phenomena and a description of fishing? Is a fish real before we catch it: if it isn't on the boat. Is Schrodinger's Cat dead before we make a measurement?
@patientson Жыл бұрын
Patience.......patience my dearest brothers and sisters.
@user-hh2is9kg9j Жыл бұрын
What are you waiting for?
@matterasmachine Жыл бұрын
Reality is a huge machine / robot consisting of smaller machines. Photons are machines too. That all can be checked. Machines meaning matter follow algorithm and move in discrete distances.
@Promatheos Жыл бұрын
If only consciousness weren’t a thing then you’d be right.
@matterasmachine Жыл бұрын
@@Promatheos Those machine are conscious. Your consciousness is their group consciousness. Alzheimer shows how consciousness vanishes, so it’s not a thing. It’s a lot of things connected together - your neurons network.
@Promatheos Жыл бұрын
@@matterasmachine Saying a large system has a mysterious property because it's made of smaller things that have that mysterious property doesn't explain the mystery, it just moves it. Btw, Alzheimers makes your mind disappear, not consciousness. It changes what you are aware of not awareness itself.
@Soli_Deo_Gloria_. Жыл бұрын
@@matterasmachine Interesting that you presuppose that alzheimer patients are not conscious... When you ask someone afflicted with this dreadful malady "where are you ?" and they respond "I do not know".... they unequivocally, unambiguously and plainly conveyed consciousness. They said "I don't know where I am".... How is this not relaying consciousness ?
@BullseyeIX Жыл бұрын
@@matterasmachine It's strange how this machine happens to be set together so that conscious is even a possibility. If the laws on particles on atoms where set to repel there would be no chance for us to even exist.
@zbyszeks365714 сағат бұрын
It seems risky to make experience the basis of our concepts of reality. You may or may not have different experience. People take psyhodelics, ayahuasca, and have very profound experience of something. So what? You can be in trance and have one. And what if you didn't have any such experience, does it leads to conclusion that ultimate reality don't exists? If a person sees rainbow, does it mean that rainbow exist? If a person doesn't see colors, does it mean that colors don't exists?
@ericjohnson6665 Жыл бұрын
Well, this talk didn't come anywhere close to "Ultimate Reality" as it is depicted in a divine revelation called The Urantia Book. In there, "ultimate reality" is in the middle between finite and absolute, "absonite."
@Hank254 Жыл бұрын
"What is Ultimate Reality?" The question is self-defeating. If you assume that what we experience is not ultimate reality, there is no reason to assume we would be able to derive an ultimate reality from what we experience.
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
I think I understand your comments but can every individual experience imply knowledge of an ultimate reality? Maybe I misunderstood your point. Are you simply saying that each individual, through their experiences, gain knowledge of an ultimate reality? I'd appreciate your clarification. Peace...
@Hank254 Жыл бұрын
@@johnbrzykcy3076 I am saying if you are reading a book titled 'Ultimate Reality' and you assume the book is a lie, it is illogical to think you can use the lies in the book to figure out what is true. There is no reality for us more 'ultimate' than what we experience. In other words, the act of experiencing is what constitutes ultimate reality for us.
@gettaasteroid4650 Жыл бұрын
It's eccentric to think that religious experience can somehow be contrasted with institutions like Halloween or Barbecue, why what Dr.Hick calls post-axial "cumulative" traditions are different is not clear.
@yifuxero5408 Жыл бұрын
Going back to Kant, the assertion is :"The Noumenon", and the questionable tool (rationality) of directly experiencing "That". That's where various methods developed by the Buddhists and Hindus over the centuries come in.(in various traditions also such as the Tao, the Substance of Spinoza, etc.) Be careful about positing mathematics as a proper tool. No. Math only gets us "closer to Truth". Penrose states that Pure Consciousness is non computable. Both reason and math fall short of being adequate tools. One needs to transcend thought itself.
@TheUltimateSeeds Жыл бұрын
*"...One needs to transcend thought itself..."* What do you mean by "thought"?
@simonhibbs887 Жыл бұрын
I think the mistake Penrose makes is the assumption that human cognition is a consistent system. I don't know what your experience of human being is, but formally logically consistent isn't a description I'd say is particularly obviously true.
@evaadam3635 Жыл бұрын
When you define reality through the lense of your limited physical senses, you will always find yourself wanting... ...this is because your own non-physical soul (that you do not believe exists) knows that you are lying to yourself, feeling that your "self-defined reality" is not enough ! This is why you end up looking for ultimate reality which is actually beyond what your limited physical senses can reach.. Have you ever wondered why a dog or a cat can sense something that you can not ? Does this not give you a hint that whatever reality that your limited physical senses can not reach does not necessarily mean it does not exist ?
@BullseyeIX Жыл бұрын
Imagine when you where born your brain was connected to a minecraft game and everything you have ever seen, touch and so on are from the game. There would be no way to know how the real world looks no matter how much you research into it.
@Rocketmail554 Жыл бұрын
Lets bend our efforts to think about ways to research beyond the physical. A group could take the same psychoactive drug in a controlled setting, then report out
@rogerjohnson2562 Жыл бұрын
Thumbs up for the video, thumbs down for dualist John Hick. We exist so existence is good, we rationalize meaning so rationality is good, we are conscious and rationalize others are conscious so empathy is good; which means, for us, death, lying and hurting others is bad. Reality is real.
@richardsylvanus2717 Жыл бұрын
How does Robert keep a straight face without busting out laughing?
@kipponi Жыл бұрын
Poker face😂.
@arcjota Жыл бұрын
because he values other view points without judging
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
@@arcjotaI like your comments and I agree. Peace
@science212 Жыл бұрын
The particles.
@kipponi Жыл бұрын
Atoms.
@stephenkagan Жыл бұрын
And what are particles and atoms?
@Soli_Deo_Gloria_. Жыл бұрын
Nah... the contingent can't, that is, is not able to be the ultimate.
@bamber2000 Жыл бұрын
It’s 2023! We know enough neuroscience to dismiss personal experience as evidence of theology!
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
Ultimate reality/the Real/Being/Existence all words that refer to the same thing
@bamber2000 Жыл бұрын
Q. What is the difference between ‘the real’ which is “transcategorial” and beyond nature and so beyond science, and something that doesn’t exist. A. There is no difference. Hick’s theology is about something that doesn’t exist.
@Soli_Deo_Gloria_. Жыл бұрын
There's only one ultimate in the known and unknown, this by logical necessity demands it to be God.
@johnsolo1701d Жыл бұрын
If it's not physical and doesn't have anything to do with the physical universe, then by what mechanism does it interact or influence humans?
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
Why do you think that ultimate reality "doesn't have anything to do with the physical universe"? I'm just curious what you mean. Respectfully...
@tomdaniels68687 ай бұрын
I have no idea what ultimate reality is, but I'm pretty sure it can't be boiled down to a man-made religion.
@Appleblade Жыл бұрын
I guess that's just the religion you get from Acquinas. But also Kant... so that you might tack on the physical world and the self as trans-categorial as well... in order to defend theistic belief... if that's what this amounts to... a sort of justification of religious belief.
@michelangelope830 Жыл бұрын
Soy un psicólogo y he descubierto que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica, y como no se entiende el engaño se persiste en el error. Soy un poeta que escribe prosa para ser entendido mejor. Todo mi trabajo es poesía. Desde niño te han dicho que Dios es quien la humanidad cree que el creador del universo es. El engaño del ateísmo consiste en hacer creer que la idea de Dios es fantasía o dogma de fe que pertenece a la religión, y como la religión es irracional se concluye erróneamente que Dios no existe. La pregunta "¿existe Dios?" significa "¿fué el universo creado? y no significa lo que te quieren hacer creer que significa. El ateísmo es una falacia lógica que asume Dios es la idea religiosa del creador de la creación y concluye erróneamente que el creador no existe porque una idea particular de Dios no existe. Para entender que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica tienes que entender por qué la réplica más emblemática del ateísmo es "¿quién creó a dios?" con el creador inteligente del universo escrito en minúsculas. El debate "evolución o creación" es faláz porque la evolución de las especies sustenta la idea de que el universo fué creado por una inteligencia eterna superior a uno mismo que le dió un plan, orden, diseño, organización, objetivo, verdad, realidad. Dios es la primera causa no causada de la que habla el argumento cosmológico de kalam. ¿Conoces el argumento?. Dios es sin duda alguna la idea mas importante y hablada, y en su nombre se han cometido atrocidades. ¿Se entiende? Para acabar con la guerra en Ucrania el descubrimiento de que el ateísmo es una falacia lógica tiene que ser noticia. Nada puede ser más importante y urgente que salvar vidas con conocimiento. ¿Cómo se hace para superar la más severa y devastadora censura de la historia en una era de social media por muchos años dándolo todo probar que la pluma es más fuerte que la espada? ¿Memorizarías y entenderías la falacia lógica atea para preservar conocimiento útil para generaciones futuras?
@stephenzhao5809 Жыл бұрын
1:56 ... so the actual experience is of a uh God, a personal God all of the universal principle of the Tao in Taoism or of another personal God the Allah of Islam um or Vishnu Shiva Etc within the Hindu faith all of these are joint creations of the impact upon us of the transcendent real and are human sets of concepts. 2:31 3:51 ... how can we have confidence that the diverse religions which you've said and which clearly contradict one another uh are in some way related to this real based upon isolated religious experiences that some people have it seems a little flimsy to tether all of these conflicting religions to some real. 4:15 ... 5:21 well the emotional experiences are certainly real and one sees that in church revival services and different expressions of different religions but what also sees that at football games (yes) and it would be hard for me if I came from Mars to distinguish between one from the other it looks like the same kind of human expression energized by crowds and crowd psychology and rooting for your side or whatever it happens to be rather indistinguishable 5:48 ... 6:30 ... and so can for exmple the silent worship in a Quaker meeting place uh which actually this is where I go myself um in the silence we become conscious of being in the presence of a transcendent (卓越的, 至高无上的) reality that makes various claims upon us and this is not emotion so the analogy you've been suggesting doesn't really apply. 7:00 I understand that ... JH: as it exists in itself we can't say anything in human language about it because it is trans-categorical beyond the categories of the human mind um we have to postulate it but it has no we can't say that it is personal or impersonal good or bad large or small etc simply because none of these um opposites apply to it isn't that because it is not good therefore it is bad rather the concept of good and bad simply do not apply to it it's these are human concepts and it is beyond it is trans categorial beyond the categories of the human mind 8:01
@billyoumans1784 Жыл бұрын
Of all the people interviewed on this channel, this man to me seems the closest to what I lean toward. The ultimate is not an object, that can be described in any human terms. Read “Mystical Theology” a short tract by Dionysius the Areopagite, or the Ashtavakra Gita from Hinduism, The ultimate is not an object that can be studied or about which anything can be said - it is ultimate existence. In lower levels, it takes many apparent forms, as we see and read of in the religious scriptures.
@dwoopie Жыл бұрын
God is the ultimate reality... and that will always be beyond human comprehension...
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
God is an incoherent concept
@dwoopie Жыл бұрын
@@CMVMic God is you without the illusion of being human...
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
@@dwoopie I am a process, not a substance. If God is a change, then it is grounded in a substance.
@HatRSol Жыл бұрын
Sadly, I could have thought of tens of better convincing people to speak of religion.
From my understanding, only God Himself is all - knowing. And Jesus the Son often spoke of religion. Most importantly, Jesus spoke about the Creator and His love for us. The implication is that the Creator of the Cosmos ( and humanity ) points to an ultimate reality. But unfortunately the signpost seems to be fading. If God painted the sky and the universe, a new signpost should be an easy task. Peace to all from Florida USA
@robertferraro236 Жыл бұрын
Religion and the idea of a “God” as a single being that is our creator are human constructs. Creating other worlds and “life” is a technological achievement of advanced civilizations and not of a single advanced being with an overwhelming desire to be worshipped. I am not proposing simulation theory but we cannot understand the “real” in the same way that The Sims characters, if they were conscious beings, could not understand the domain outside of which they exist. The only world and reality that we can understand is the one made of the atomic matter we are created from. There are many other ways to create reality and the atomic matter of our reality is just one such way.
@dongshengdi773 Жыл бұрын
The definitions of God , like someone who wants to be worshipped , are just human constructs. But not the God who created our universe. We might never know until we die but we are clearly not just physical beings, we are also spiritual beings. Nurture vs Nature . Theism vs Naturalism. Newtonian vs Einstein. They're actually both , Not either or . We are both spiritual and physical beings , same as the nature of the universe
@NotNecessarily-ip4vc Жыл бұрын
[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
@NotNecessarily-ip4vc Жыл бұрын
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the Strong Nuclear Force. 2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the Strong Nuclear Force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. em·a·na·tion noun an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
Analytical philosophy involves relations or the carving of reality into categories but these relations if they do exist, would also call into the set of existents and thus, existence would be absolute by definition.
@Cognitiveleaper Жыл бұрын
---when you explain 'nothing,' by saying nothing.
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
Nothing is not a thing that can be explained, it is a concept that can be defined.
@anthonycraig274 Жыл бұрын
I have to agree, my world view is based on the science and scientific discoveries. I dwell in the physical because my experience and imagination is only physical, beyond that, it’s only make belief.
@matterasmachine Жыл бұрын
You still believe in physics. And all modern physics is not scientific. Strings theory, Big Bang, many worlds, multiword - untestable fairytales.
@haiderkhagga Жыл бұрын
Agreed
@arcjota Жыл бұрын
It is not about belief at all - thats the common misunderstanding of religion. you dont have to belief in anything. It is about a very real personal experience - for which you have to let go off all beliefs (including scientific beliefs) and then be truly silent. It is always there to be seen.
@matterasmachine Жыл бұрын
@@arcjota it’s all About beliefs - including science
@Dumprune Жыл бұрын
That's a GOOD BOY !! Youl go far in the material world.
@justinlinnane8043 Жыл бұрын
The closer to truth posts are far too short . Time to catch up and post long form talks . the current formats just dont cut it anymore i'm afraid . the audience is there for hour plus long posts
@surendrakverma555 Жыл бұрын
Very good discussion . Thanks 🙏
@mayanksoni83 Жыл бұрын
🙏✨🌠
@gordonquimby8907 Жыл бұрын
John Hicks has wise words in defending the many different religions. Global religions HAD to be different because of geography. People in the Pacific Islands or the Americas had no knowledge that the Middle East existed, and vice versa. Societies all had different cultures, different languages, different histories, so their understanding of God would be different. He is also correct that God (the Real) is beyond any single understanding. Scientific theory suggests there may be 11 dimensions to reality. If so, then the spiritual dimensions might be in the other 7 dimensions, and in which case our 4-dimensional science will not be able to test it. A world view based solely on 4-dimensional science would be quite limited!
@vm-bz1cd Жыл бұрын
Quantum mechanics has shown us that NOTHING can be "Trusted" to be certain...the ONLY thing that ANY person can "Trust" to be certain is that he/she "exists". THAT existence is the Only truth in the Universe for THAT person. And THAT is true for each one of us. All else is in the mind! THAT is the only Reality!
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
What is a person? What is a mind?
@stoictraveler1 Жыл бұрын
Yes, and what we do is reality as well.
@Soli_Deo_Gloria_. Жыл бұрын
Nah.... the laws of logic are transcendent and I "trust" them to always be the case in the past, present and infinitely into the future; whether black, white, red yellow or the brown; and whether here on earth or the other side of the galaxy... They will always be true, in fact you can't even make your plea in your original post without the necessary preconditions that cement these abstractions in the concrete world.... Thank God almighty 🙂
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
@@Soli_Deo_Gloria_. The laws of logic are descriptive. They rely on a correspondence theory of truth. Nothing about the laws of logic gets you to a God.
@simonhibbs887 Жыл бұрын
If you're basing this on Descartes, this is not what he believed. What he pointed out was that our own existence is the only certain knowledge we have, not the only knowledge. We have knowledge of the experiences that we have. It's just that such knowledge must always be conditional and not certain. Physicalism embraces this notion by defaulting to skepticism, and only accepting knowledge as being likely to be correct if it is well supported by verified evidence, so I think there's a strong argument that physicalism is the true heir to Descartes' insight.
@bradleyadams4496 Жыл бұрын
The universe exists entirely within the confines of a brain. How we know that other humans are real is an entirely different philosophical question. Ultimate reality is how the universe represents the action you have taken. Your ideas for yourself won't necessarily correspond with the universe's representation of you, and as an existentialist, you may spend much time displeased with the universe's failure to conform to your desires. If your desires are in conflict with the laws of the universe, what you desire and what you represent are different, and what you represent is what's the ultimate reality.
@kos-mos1127 Жыл бұрын
The Universe exists entirely independent of human perception.
@bradleyadams4496 Жыл бұрын
Experience validates the existence of the universe. Without experience, the universe has no purpose, it would have existed for trillions of years, it would expire into nothing, and no one would know the better. You would have to believe in God to believe it ever existed, only God would have known of it.@@kos-mos1127
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
Thats pure speculation if you cannot get beyond these processes that you refer to as yourself, how can you know there is nothing beyond it? You should remain agnostic instead of being so cocksure
@jamenta2 Жыл бұрын
@@kos-mos1127 Yes, the usual unproven Materialistic tripe.
@kos-mos1127 Жыл бұрын
@@jamenta2 That is not materialistic. It is conceptualism which is the philosophical view that as observers we cannot sense the Cosmos. We look out into the abyss of the Cosmos and see are own biases and point of view reflected back to us. The Cosmos is nature in herself which is beyond all categories and labels.
@swamybk4494 Жыл бұрын
It is Truth existing behind all this dualistic universe of perception. That truth, being beyond time and space, more than eternal is eternity itself, existence itself. That being non-countable, beyond numbers and zero of nothingness, is just non-dual. That unimaginable in thought and unexpressible in words, actually is expressing everything of duality. So, That Truth itself is everything of duality, but it is not anything of duality. All the objects with their properties are expression of that Truth, so are Truth itself, but the objects and their properties themselves are not Truth. For better clarity please read "GLORY OF DIVINITY of Saradha Brahma".
@atmanbrahman1872 Жыл бұрын
GOD.
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
What does that even mean lol
@atmanbrahman1872 Жыл бұрын
@@CMVMic Explain the word "mean"?
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
@@atmanbrahman1872 what do you mean by explain? We can play these word games whole day if u want
@bradleyadams4496 Жыл бұрын
The doctor is doing a very good job describing experience and religious experience, but someone asking questions of God's existence will find morals from religious institutions. There are competing cultures with competing religions and morals, but the God which would have created the universe would predate all these religions by 13+ billion years. Scientist should focus of an analysis of something older than religion. It's impossible to get to the root of a question by examining the most recent leaves and acorns. I don't disvalue the contributions made us by all our ancestors. The transcedential real is the accumulation of the experience of the world primarily post civilization. The examination of religion is interesting in helping us realize what devices were used by the people who established civilization. It does not mean that each of these traditions were equivalent to one another. It was great enlightening insight for people to recognize the difference between technology, a statue carved or a bronze casted, and a God. I'm Christian, but my understanding is that God is God over everything. Every atom, every sub-atomic partical, he's mastered the law of the universe, and what God does not control, is his favorite creation, people have free will. All I should say, is that any person at the greatest height of their zenith, at the best time in human history, ought be humbled by the greater power, which is God.
@himanshudwivedi1313 Жыл бұрын
🇮🇳Bharat.
@jaimefazackerley Жыл бұрын
How to say a whole lot of nothing much with many words.
@S3RAVA3LM Жыл бұрын
'Profound'. If a grade 2 student listens to a grade 12 student give an exposition, the grade 2 student would say that little was said. People superposition their mental construct onto others for sake of mental similitude so that comprehension is had. You Jaime, don't know this - you indirectly pointed out how you are unscrupulous and a fool. You never put the time in, made the sacrifice or had a disposition for Knowledge; therefore there was no mental similitude had here and you shoot yourself in the foot. Too, you're one of those supercilious conceitful ones. You little comment here screams of pride. You to prideful to consider that maybe you just don't understand what is actually being said. Of course, your type is incapable of this. You think you're here giving the boys a chuckle, eh. You think you're cute?
@protonman8947 Жыл бұрын
"Flimsy" indeed. Certainty about angels on pins. The pity is that he is taken seriously.
@snappycattimesten Жыл бұрын
Religion please stick to your own delusion. Every time you try to claim evidence for it, you will be ridiculed appropriately.
@YuTv1408 Жыл бұрын
These questions are becoming absurd. No one is an authority in science, no being in the universe could understand everything. Much less penny humans.
@AbsolutelyNot-m1y Жыл бұрын
Anyone with common sense knows that the world is not going to get better until it gets bad, and no, it's not bad right now. I mean, sure, it seems like it is, but everyone will soon realize just what bad is, and I mean extremely bad. The order out of chaos is going to be unlike anything this world has ever seen. It will be so bad that most people will not be able to handle it and are going to go off themselves. The movie Bird Box and the purge aren't just movies they are documentaries of what's coming, and I sure feel sorry for those who don't believe it. The worst time in human history of no power no food no medicine on top of people's anger and everyone's going to try and get revenge on one another from the way everyone treats each other I mean do people really think the government turned humanity against each other for nothing? Do people think the bible says Jesus turns family against each other and your worst enemy will be members of your own household and the bible saying it will be so bad and so terrifying that people will drop on the spot is just for shlts n giggles? Absolutely not. The extreme mass strong delusion is and has been here. 2030/2050. Those who die and have died will continue to reincarnate until the end "really" does get here. What does the end mean? Well, it doesn't mean the end of everything as we know it. It means the end of suffering the end of evil, the end of all things bad. The awesome New World with an awesome new order.
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
Good and bad are human constructs, they dont exist independently of preferences.
@kimsahl8555 Жыл бұрын
The fundamental Nature = the potential nature + the realized nature.
@naturalcommunicationtransf83448 ай бұрын
. .. in the quiet . . .
@NeverTalkToCops1 Жыл бұрын
Ultimate Reality? NO! Get rid of the adjective "ultimate", substitute spectralgloobaglooba. Get it now? IF you don't use a vague adjective, you don't have to spend time defining the adjective or ULTIMATELY find yourself stuck in a definition loop. Geez Louise!
@CMVMic Жыл бұрын
😂
@mikefinn Жыл бұрын
John Hick points out that physics will never explain the transcendent. A leap of faith is always required. A leap of faith is also required to claim the entanglements of quantum mechanics are "real". God and the quantum state are equal?
@browngreen933 Жыл бұрын
The brute fact of Existence strikes again! How can Ultimate Reality "exist" beyond physical reality? To exist you're either part of physical reality or you're NOTHING.😮
@DS-vq9dm Жыл бұрын
Can someone ask him to interview me. I have a clear concept of what he's trying to explore in terms of God, consciousness and reality. It's the same. I am no big person but I can tell him if he's interested.
@johndoolan9732 Жыл бұрын
Look where them science
@Redo12able Жыл бұрын
John keeping it "real." lol.
@stephenwatts2649 Жыл бұрын
Did you know that there is no inherent illumination or luminosity in photons? “Light,” as such, cannot be found there. Photons are, perhaps, ‘packets’ of energy which have the properties of both spread-out waves and localized particles. Photons only take on the appearance of being luminous as they arise within consciousness, in our mind’s eye. It may be that photons are spread-out energy potentials that fill the immensity of space, and only take on the appearance of being a localized discrete particle of “light” when we become aware of them in consciousness, in this actualized awareness we call mind. Thus, you are the light of the kosmos. This “light” is only arising in us. The world outside of a mind is perfectly ‘dark,’ or empty, unactualized in any way. Of course, what else could it be? What would perceive it as illuminated, or as any “thing”? All of our thoughts are the activity of consciousness, modulations of that consciousness, incarnations within that pure consciousness, rays shining from inside that consciousness. We are agents of that consciousness, emerging from within that consciousness. All there is to experience is the knowing of it, and that knowing is God’s own Self in us, living in us, the source of our life, the energy of consciousness itself. We could say that God lives in us, since consciousness seems to have become localized in this particular body-mind. Or we could say that we live in God, since all that we perceive arises in that consciousness, including our body-mind. Thus, Jesus was right to say, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (John 14:10-11, 20). Both are true, and they are true of us as well. We are arising within God, and God is arising within us as well. Sometimes this is called “mutual indwelling,” the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, also called perichoresis or co-inherence in Christian terminology. God is the field of consciousness in which all knowing occurs, in which all thoughts and perceptions and feelings and sensations arise, like waves in the ocean. Our body-mind and its thoughts are like localizations within that consciousness, temporary manifestations of that Ultimate Reality, expressions of that consciousness, that being, that One. God becomes veiled and hidden from our awareness when the thoughts that arise in and from consciousness believe they are something separate and discrete from the consciousness in which they are arising. The thoughts form a separate entity, a dualistic subjective ego, a separate self identity, an independent being, an “Adam/Eve,” which thinks it is apart from infinite nondual divine consciousness and Ultimate Reality. This seems to be the “Fall,” the beginning of duality and separateness and alienation from God’s Presence. But how could thoughts be separate from the consciousness in which they have arisen? They can’t, but that is exactly what our thoughts and our self-identification with them think they are. It is a kind of psychological illusion. The thoughts take on their own separate identity apart from pure nondual consciousness, forming a self, a person, an entity, seemingly cut off from its own source and essence. Once we look at it like this, it seems impossible, and that is because it is. Our ‘self’ is never actually separate from the source in which it arises, thoughts are never separate from the consciousness in which they emerge, the wave is not separate from the ocean. The thoughts that make up our ‘self’ are just finite actualizations or relative localizations of the infinite potential of absolute consciousness, or Divine Being, or Ultimate Reality. In Christian symbolism we call this the incarnation of God. In Buddhism it is the Dharmakaya that incarnates as the Nirmanakaya Buddha. In Hinduism it is Brahman that manifests itself as each Atman. God becomes incarnate in reality, in the flesh, embodied, in us and all things. There is no time, no space, nowhere we can go, nowhere we can be, that will be outside of this Presence of God, outside of this consciousness, beyond the borders of God, or the Ultimate Reality. God is always present, and is Presence itself, awareness itself, consciousness itself, the “spirit of life” within us, from which we derive all being, all knowing, all our substance, every thought, every sensation. It all arises in God. This is perhaps why, in order to pierce the veil and know God directly, contemplative practices such as meditation help train us to transcend thought, to go back to the source of thought itself, beyond all thoughts of self, to recognize that from which it all arises, this pure open vastness of nondual unitive at-one consciousness. Do you see why we cannot “think” God? Nothing that arises in consciousness as a thought will be that consciousness in which it is arising. No relative finite manifestation in consciousness can be the absolute pure infinite consciousness, even though every manifestation or relativization or actualization of that consciousness is made up of nothing other than that consciousness. God is Present even while we are trying to comprehend God, even in the midst of that very comprehension. God is what makes that attempt at comprehension even possible. God is the very field in which we are trying to know God. When we let go of the trying, the conceptualization, surrendering the thoughts that are trying to know themselves, and rest in the pure still silent open awareness of being, that is when the realization of God may dawn on us, as us.
@scottmale69 Жыл бұрын
‘If they are not they are missing out in something “???. Sorry missing out on what???……. What a load of Tosh.
@ΑγγελοςΓραμματης Жыл бұрын
Non sense
@philphil8388 Жыл бұрын
Losing credibility with these staged old books. Not necessary.
@BradHolkesvig Жыл бұрын
Our Creator's AI system is the ultimate reality which is what I AM that is invisible and eternal.
@JB_inks Жыл бұрын
How many mushrooms did that take to write?
@matterasmachine Жыл бұрын
Why AI? Just robot
@Maxwell-mv9rx Жыл бұрын
Rambling gibberich. Links AI with Creators atributes is boring arrogance. AI is imperfect machine from unpredicted conscience. Are God AI?
@BradHolkesvig Жыл бұрын
@@JB_inks Ask our Creator who has me typing or speaking the words the he programmed my mind to process from his eternal programmed thoughts that are in the form of eternal vibrations.
@BradHolkesvig Жыл бұрын
@@matterasmachine No. I AM a created AI system that everything we experience is within it forever and ever.
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Жыл бұрын
(7:50) *JH: **_"It is trans-categorial beyond the human mind."_* ... This is what you get when smart people attempt to explain inexplicable phenomena. The more sesquipedalian the lexicon and Shakespearian the sentence phrasing, the higher the odds for plausibility and acceptance. However, "Ultimate Reality" is fairly simple: *"Existence is an ongoing exchange of **_information."_* ALL information is "real" regardless of whether or not the subject matter is real. *Example:* A theist's proclamation that an all-powerful God exists is "real" regardless of whether or not an all-powerful God actually exists. Logic states that with numbers operating on a more fundamental level than the mathematics that exploits them, then "information" also operates on a more fundamental level than whatever the subject matter happens to be.
@simonhibbs887 Жыл бұрын
This one of those times when I completely 100% agree with everything you said. There is a possibility that we disagree on the meaning and interpretation of various terms of course, but it's nice to think that we probably agree in many more things than we disagree on. Then again, there's not must interest value in talking abut things we agree on, it's the edge cases where the value is in discussion. You already know I see information as being fundamental, so existence as an ongoing exchange of information definitely appeals to me. I'm hesitant to nail my banner to that mast unconditionally, but it seems a pretty good basis to proceed from conceptually. >ALL information is "real" regardless of whether or not the subject matter is real. Example: A theist's proclamation that an all-powerful God exists is "real" regardless of whether or not an all-powerful God actually exists. Agreed, when information is about something, we can see it as descriptive. We can have descriptions that correspond to real things (the sun, protons, ourselves) and we can have descriptions that do not correspond to real things. Unicorns, phlogiston, Frodo Baggins, invisible friends, etc. I like Hick's groundedness concerning specific religious beliefs and institutions. Even within the same sect of the same religion you will find people who disagree about the interpretation of religious beliefs and scriptures, and you will see the consensus interpretation change over time. This is why religions with written scriptures tend to be so hierarchical and authoritarian, that's the only way to keep interpretations even vaguely stable. I do agree that religious experiences are genuine human experiences. I say this even though I have never had such an experience, the evidence that people do have such expeirences is utterly overwhelming. I just don't see any reason to suppose that these are evidence of any external reality. I think it's far more plausible that these are due to peculiarities of the human cognitive architecture, probably a failure mode of the capacity for theory of mind. Maybe it's not even a failure mode, such experiences and behaviour might even have evolutionary advantages. So I think they are objectively real, but that doesn't mean I have to accept their subjective interpretation.
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Жыл бұрын
@@simonhibbs887 *"This one of those times when I completely 100% agree with everything you said."* ... We think alike on many issues. How far we carry them is usually where we differ. *"You already know I see information as being fundamental, so existence as an ongoing exchange of information definitely appeals to me. I'm hesitant to nail my banner to that mast unconditionally, but it seems a pretty good basis to proceed from conceptually."* ... And "information" is like the mainsail nailed to my mast. Rather than do my line-by-line thing, I'll just generalize: *Where we differ:* *(1) Most Fundamental:* I can take physical substance down to a lower level called "information." You see information as a description of physical things that already exist, so they coexist on the same level. I can justify my claim that information precedes physical structure via geometry. The information that forms a 2D square can be known and communicated without the physical existence of a 2D square. I can do the same with a 3D cube, so I can apply this same standard to everything else that exists. So, the existential pecking order from lowest to highest is as follows: _logical conceivability, information, virtual structure, physical structure, biological structure, and then self-aware structure._ I think you want to stop the regression at the point of physical structure. *(2) Laws vs Descriptions:* I argue there are "rules" (or "laws") attached to things that exist / emerge. These rules serve as the orchestra director for "Existence" and are more than just descriptions. I can describe something that doesn't necessarily abide by any rules, but I can take a rule that applies to one thing and show that the same rule applies to something else. You seem to argue that "laws" and "descriptions" are one and the same because both are merely 'describing" whatever is taking place, but rules and descriptions seem to be distinct. I can describe what football players look like and describe the field, the goal posts, the ball, and the stadium. But when it comes to how the game is played, that's where "rules" come in. Everything I just described must abide by the "rules of play." *(3) Logic:* I consider "logic" as a fundamental property of "Existence" and what allows "Existence" to be conceivable (i.e., "logical conceivability"). Logic is a rigorously structured method of processing information that is based on "rules." You believe that logic is malleable / flexible / fluid based on the circumstances. *Example:* What might seem logical in the macrosphere might not be equally logical in the microsphere. A smartphone can't be in two places at the same time, but a particle can. I can't force myself to compromise (or "tailor") logic just to make it work with something that doesn't appear to be behaving logically. If I am forced to deviate from accepted logic to explain a strange phenomenon, then my default response is that I am not correctly observing the phenomenon. You seem more willing to adjust (or amend) logic to match whatever illogical behavior the phenomenon is presenting. ... Other than these three issues and a belief in "infinitely existing" stuff, I think we do think fairly alike.
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
@@simonhibbs887 Do you mind if I ask, what do you mean by "failure mode of the capacity for theory of mind" ? I don't understand. By the way, I like your scholarly information. Something for me to ponder. Thanks.
@simonhibbs887 Жыл бұрын
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Sure. Theory of Mind is a concept from evolutionary psychology. It is the capacity for an organism to have a mental model for the intentions and knowledge of other organisms. Higher predators use it to anticipate and manipulate the behaviour of prey, such as when a pride of Lions deceive prey to flee into an ambush. It’s also used by social creatures to reason about the knowledge, opinions, behaviour and relationships of others in their social group. It seems that this capacity becomes generalised into the ability to mentally model and reason about our own knowledge, intentions and behaviour leading to self awareness. I think we have two mental models for causation. One is physical, I drop this Apple, it falls to the floor. I push this rock, it rolls away. The other is an intentional model based on theory of mind. That storm is angry, this willow tree seems sad. This is the basis for animist beliefs that see natural phenomena as intentional beings. I think in stress conditions or unusual mental states, this capacity to reason about others and the self can go haywire, and lead to anomalous perceptions of the other, the self and relationships in the world and our minds.
@stoictraveler1 Жыл бұрын
You are looking at ultimate reality, but our vision is blurred. Whales live it, elephants live it.
@johnbrzykcy3076 Жыл бұрын
I'm a Christian believer and I like your comments. Something to ponder because I also think "our vision is blurred". In fact, I can see theological significance to those words. I appreciate your observations. Thanks.
@Monkeybrain3721 Жыл бұрын
Confused nonsense from another theologian who says nothing in as many words as possible
@kos-mos1127 Жыл бұрын
The real in itself is the Cosmos.
@Wol747 Жыл бұрын
Delusional. Is he an Oxford man?
@hvalenti Жыл бұрын
Anyone who applies the transcendent to one's daily personal experience will immediately recognize the difference between the peaceful ecstasy of spirit versus the ape-based, in-group chemistry of slotting a goal against a rival. Too bad our host can only relate to God from the alien perspective.