Nature of Reality: A Challenge to Atheists

[neo-x]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on your brains capacity to handle information at any given moment. If you are high, you can't trust your senses. If you are inhaling carbon monoxide, you will not be able to sense correctly as it screws up our senses.

I am not sure why would you ask this though. I mean we can trust our senses. And by that I mean our sensory organs can do what they are meant to. If you can see this post, can you trust your senses 100% that this is what you are seeing?

[Kurieuo]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on your brains capacity to handle information at any given moment. If you are high, you can't trust your senses. If you are inhaling carbon monoxide, you will not be able to sense correctly as it screws up our senses.

I am not sure why would you ask this though. I mean we can trust our senses. And by that I mean our sensory organs can do what they are meant to. If you can see this post, can you trust your senses 100% that this is what you are seeing?

Neo, I'm just coming on the back of this last post of yours, so hope this response of mine isn't out of place. However, I'd respond to your immediate question here with a question back to you: Why do you trust your senses are telling you the truth rather than simply what is beneficial for survival?

To also fairly respond to your question, the post I am seeing ultimately requires my mind to construct meaning to the shapes, symbols and the like that my eyes and brain are wired to gain access to. On a lower level of reality, I'm actually dealing with a digital world, 1s and 0s, voltages even, and yet we've developed a system that we can utilise via our sense experience, to hook into and use in a rather stable and coherent manner. Yet, the reality of our posting or reading posts online, is actually far removed from the fundamental reality of what is going on, how it is all actually happening with voltages, cpus, the Internet and the like.

To extend this analogy, it seems to me Atheists only accept the "immediacy of experience" as being true. They just accept at face value what you see is what you get, is 100% true, is objective reality. Just like many people who accept that a post is just a post, they have no understanding of the voltages being controlled by a computer, cpu, memory, layers of software and the like. It just works, it just is. In this way, one intention of my opening post is to challenge Atheists to think more deeply about reality, the underpinnings of their physical experience they just accept so implicitly without questioning, and as such their own logical foundations for accepting their often held positivist beliefs.

Sure, we all intuitively trust our senses, it seems practical for us to do so. Our physical survival so far as we know depends upon such. The question though isn't whether we ought to trust given our senses are the best we've got to interface with the world around us, but rather how we can be fully rationally grounded in believing our senses give us a true reflection of the reality we experience? I believe strong arguments can be made that they don't, but rather the world we see and sensory experiences are at least partly constructed by our brains.

I shared this interesting talk elsewhere, not too long ago (recommend):

• Do We See Reality As It Is? - https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffma ... y_as_it_is
  Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

[neo-x]

K, I appreciate your post and the TED talk you shared. Very interesting indeed. I was reading about something like this a while back when it comes to perception at the quantum level, which again means that perception drives reality, forks it. Now what Hoffman is saying is different but a lot of what he said, I agree with.

For instance, it's true that the jewel beetle and humans may perceive things the same way because of our perception but we also can use reason to understand, unlike the beetle, if we are doing something wrong.

Like, he gave the example of us thinking that the earth was flat, which again made us the same as the beetle thinking the bottle was a female. But we do know now that - the earth is flat - is a relative perception. In the same way, if you stand on the earth and look up, you see the moon, but if you are on the moon, you can look up and see the earth. But if anyone could have travelled outside of earth, they would immediately see that in reality that is not so, that it is not flat. The beetle, however, is stuck with the bottle as its brain is not equipped with enough sensors to differentiate or reason.

So then the question is of not perceiving but rather testing perception. I kind of hinted it back in my post that human intelligence is largely artificial intelligence, we construct things to understand broader ideas or to break them down. And our brain certainly can't sense what it is not equipped with, such as radio or xrays, no creature on earth can, for that matter.

In one way I think I was talking about the subset of the so-called reality that Hoffman is talking about. Whereas my point was that thoughts exist in the material world. However, I take it from the talk that Hoffman is talking about a much more bigger picture. Now, we know today from physics that reality is branched, forked, we don't know how exactly, but potential alternate realities exist. But it doesn't mean that reality is fake because it is perceived one way or the other. At that point, the question about a problem with perception goes out of the equation completely as now we know that two equally opposite realities exist, or potentially can exist. Truth or reality then, really, is relative at the quantum level. There is a potential reality where a match makes ice and not fire.

To come to my point, our senses do work just fine, within the confines of what they are equipped to sense. If in the larger scope, the picture in itself is not real, the reality of it being not real, doesn't change the fact that our senses are reporting data as it experiences them, the data is accurate (the reason I avoided using wor "truthful" and used the word accurate, is because it introduces conscience as an agent earlier, I think it comes later). The perception of it can be problematic as is seen in the beetle example. Because it is what they experiencing.

To extend this analogy, it seems to me Atheists only accept the "immediacy of experience" as being true. They just accept at face value what you see is what you get, is 100% true, is objective reality. Just like many people who accept that a post is just a post, they have no understanding of the voltages being controlled by a computer, cpu, memory, layers of software and the like. It just works, it just is. In this way, one intention of my opening post is to challenge Atheists to think more deeply about reality, the underpinnings of their physical experience they just accept so implicitly without questioning, and as such their own logical foundations for accepting their often held positivist beliefs.

I get what you are saying. However, to be fair, it is equally true of theists as well who takes things for granted. Because like you said, for all of us, it just works, theists and atheists combined. This is just what I have experienced in, and to pull a Trump here - people on both sides. (pun intended)
But yes I agree, I think we should be looking at things more than their face value.

Sure, we all intuitively trust our senses, it seems practical for us to do so. Our physical survival so far as we know depends upon such. The question though isn't whether we ought to trust given our senses are the best we've got to interface with the world around us, but rather how we can be fully rationally grounded in believing our senses give us a true reflection of the reality we experience? I believe strong arguments can be made that they don't, but rather the world we see and sensory experiences are at least partly constructed by our brains.

I really like what you said here.
The only thing I would say is that our sensory experiences can be logically analyzed to see how close they get to reality. That is the only way to be rationally grounded in your experience of reality.

Why do you trust your senses are telling you the truth rather than simply what is beneficial for survival?

Because senses are not about truth, at all. It is about accurate data gathering to ensure survival. And the reason they are not false is that they work out e.g if I put my hand on fire then I know it is not beneficial for survival. This is not an illusion, and within the confines of our reality, it is true.

I think there are overlaps where we substitute conscience with sensory experience, which I agree is correlated but only after our brain acts on the information. And our brains react to chemicals in a very real way. It is a materialistic process, wired even. Introduce one chemical and it will have a certain effect.

Now I agree with you that yes there is more to reality than just our senses. Our brain can play tricks on us, however, I do think it's not the rule but the exception. Additionally, the tricks - the blue dots one for example from the TED talk, is a frame by frame colour changing, which is fast enough for our brain to see it in motion, however, if you slow it down, really slow it down, you can clearly see what is happening.

The regular house fly sees everything in slow-motion, 4 times slower than an average human. That is why when you want to swat a fly, the fly sees your hand coming down in 4 seconds, whereas it takes you only 1 sec to put your hand down. Where do you think the three missing seconds go? I mean both are real because we know we often can't kill the fly exactly because it sees the threat coming towards it.

That is what I think, this is by no means a proper argument, nor I am planning on it. It is just my thoughts on your post and the video and I'd like to know yours on what I wrote.

Some more thoughts to follow a little later, at work now.

[PaulSacramento]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on your brains capacity to handle information at any given moment. If you are high, you can't trust your senses. If you are inhaling carbon monoxide, you will not be able to sense correctly as it screws up our senses.

I am not sure why would you ask this though. I mean we can trust our senses. And by that I mean our sensory organs can do what they are meant to. If you can see this post, can you trust your senses 100% that this is what you are seeing?

I agree we can trust are senses in regards to what they are "designed" for, we simply can't know anything about the world we live in without them of course.
The fine line is to understand that the material world is not the only thing there is or the only thing that is real because we CAN and DO perceive things beyond the senses.

[Nils]

Interesting discussion. I mostly agree with neo-x

First about Hoffman. The TED speech was interesting but I didn't understand what he meant by that fitness was defeating truth. Therefore I read The Interface Theory of Perception
at http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/interface.pdf. What he means, as far as I understand, is that in a simulation of evolution he has done, there are two strategies A and B competing. The strategy A was using a coarse model of the alternatives with few data bits and the other was using a fine graded model with far more data bits. If there is no cost for the extra data bits strategy B wins because it is beneficial to have that extra information using the extra bits. If there is high extra costs for handling the extra bits strategy A wins. Nothing remarkable with that, there is always an optimum solution. To reach his conclusion Hoffman calls A Fitness and B Truth and so he has shown that Fitness trumps Truth, which is a remarkable proposition.

Given his premises I don't doubt his conclusion that in those cases where the cost of having (or getting) much information is high, it may be better to have less information. But in both case A and B there is truth approximation even if the potential fault is higher in case A. In nature there is seldom a choice between very little information ( in Hoffman's example two bits) and much information (ten bits). Normally there are two individuals that are just a little different and evolution will strive to an optimum, not the extinction of one line. This optimum was probably reached for the jewel beetle. It didn't need any more information util beer drinkers appeared.

Hoffman also talks about knowing that the earth wasn't flat. I think that is a different discussion. The beetle could be equipped with some sensory organ that would enable it to discriminate between a bottle and another beetle but in the flat earth case more sensory organs would not help man. Until recently the knowledge of the earth form came from analysing data not from better perception.

Kurieuo, you say
"To extend this analogy, it seems to me Atheists only accept the "immediacy of experience" as being true. They just accept at face value what you see is what you get, is 100% true, is objective reality. Just like many people who accept that a post is just a post, they have no understanding of the voltages being controlled by a computer, cpu, memory, layers of software and the like. It just works, it just is. In this way, one intention of my opening post is to challenge Atheists to think more deeply about reality, the underpinnings of their physical experience they just accept so implicitly without questioning, and as such their own logical foundations for accepting their often held positivist beliefs."

To me it seems far to simplistic to generalise over all Atheists. The modern analytic philosophy tradition is far from united about the philosophy of science and I don't think that the differences in opinions are correlated to belief in God.

"Sure, we all intuitively trust our senses, it seems practical for us to do so. Our physical survival so far as we know depends upon such. The question though isn't whether we ought to trust given our senses are the best we've got to interface with the world around us, but rather how we can be fully rationally grounded in believing our senses give us a true reflection of the reality we experience? I believe strong arguments can be made that they don't, but rather the world we see and sensory experiences are at least partly constructed by our brains."

I don't think that our senses are perfect, there are many potential shortcomings. Earlier experiences and beliefs manipulate the sensory inputs, there is a selection what you notice and what is discarded. What's remembered depends on what happens just after an input etc. etc. All this has been studied for instance in the witness psychology. But, in the long run and in ideal situations our sensual inputs and how we process them are reliable - a combination of empiricism and logic gets mostly the correct result. I.e. we combine the sensory inputs with ideas of how the world is constituted in a pragmatic way where more inputs contributes to a better model of the world which is used to handle the inputs better, which gives a better model etc. Facts and laws combine in a continuously improved world view that is mainly correct. Plantinga don't agree but I don't find his argument convincing. If anyone is interested we can discuss that later on.

neo-x
"Now, we know today from physics that reality is branched, forked, we don't know how exactly, but potential alternate realities exist. But it doesn't mean that reality is fake because it is perceived one way or the other. At that point, the question about a problem with perception goes out of the equation completely as now we know that two equally opposite realities exist, or potentially can exist. Truth or reality then, really, is relative at the quantum level. There is a potential reality where a match makes ice and not fire."
As I understand quantum mechanics the forking effect is only noticable on the micro level.

Paul:
"I agree we can trust are senses in regards to what they are "designed" for, we simply can't know anything about the world we live in without them of course.
The fine line is to understand that the material world is not the only thing there is or the only thing that is real because we CAN and DO perceive things beyond the senses."
This is one of the things that I am really interested to know more about. How is it possible that we "CAN and DO perceive things beyond the senses" and know that these perceptions mirrors reality.
If we doubt our sensory perceptions we have an extremely useful method in natural science, to ask others to repeat experiments and try to falsify the results. But that doesn't work for non-sensory perceptions.

Nils

[PaulSacramento]

If we can't trust or senses and our ability to reason it means that any statement is void, including the one that says you can't trust your senses or reasoning obviously.
BUT we also know that there is more to the universe than what can be perceived solely by our senses.
We can't see/hear/taste and touch anything immaterial or anything outside our ability to see or hear YET we know that things do exist beyond these sense, correct?

[Philip]

Neo: As I understand quantum mechanics the forking effect is only noticable on the micro level.

And that should tell us something about attempting to apply that to the larger level of the physical world - we've no reason to believe in alternate realities, or things happening without cause. We see cause and effects everywhere - even with black holes.

[Nils]

If we can't trust or senses and our ability to reason it means that any statement is void, including the one that says you can't trust your senses or reasoning obviously.
BUT we also know that there is more to the universe than what can be perceived solely by our senses.
We can't see/hear/taste and touch anything immaterial or anything outside our ability to see or hear YET we know that things do exist beyond these sense, correct?

Yes, we have good reasons to say that we know some things exist beyond our senses but only if we can get evidence of these things. To do that we have to build a model (or law) from our direct sense observations using the methods of natural science.
Other things that we can not get evidence of we have good reasons not to believe in. How could it be possible to get reliable knowledge from our intuitions, feelings or introspection? There is no way to test such information.
Nils

[Kurieuo]

What is it like to be a bat I wonder?

[PaulSacramento]

If we can't trust or senses and our ability to reason it means that any statement is void, including the one that says you can't trust your senses or reasoning obviously.
BUT we also know that there is more to the universe than what can be perceived solely by our senses.
We can't see/hear/taste and touch anything immaterial or anything outside our ability to see or hear YET we know that things do exist beyond these sense, correct?

Yes, we have good reasons to say that we know some things exist beyond our senses but only if we can get evidence of these things. To do that we have to build a model (or law) from our direct sense observations using the methods of natural science.
Other things that we can not get evidence of we have good reasons not to believe in. How could it be possible to get reliable knowledge from our intuitions, feelings or introspection? There is no way to test such information.
Nils

Any yet, that is how science discovers things.
If we "settled" on only what can be observed or "touched", science would never progress and never find the "undiscoverable".

[Nils]

What is it like to be a bat I wonder?

Well, conscious is a difficult question but how does that relate to what I wrote?

Besides, you wrote on Sep 18: "Nils, also I haven't overlooked your post. I'm short of time lately, but I appreciate anyone opposite to my position who does try take up the challenge to justify their view of the foundational nature of reality.
I'm not sure what reasons were offered that swing you towards Materialism/Physicalism (which we might use interchangeably), but right now I've just skimmed your post and will examine your words more closely when responding.".

I understood that as you would come back later on but when I read it again the meaning may be that you will come back after I have answered you question.
Please clarify so we can go forwards.

Nils

[Nils]

Neo: As I understand quantum mechanics the forking effect is only noticable on the micro level.

And that should tell us something about attempting to apply that to the larger level of the physical world - we've no reason to believe in alternate realities, or things happening without cause. We see cause and effects everywhere - even with black holes.

Yes, in our universe most things don't happen without cause (but the decay of for example a uranium atom occurs with a statistical probability only). However, you and I have no evidence whatsoever of how universes are created, that's metaphysical or theological speculation.

Nils

[Philip]

Nils: However, you and I have no evidence whatsoever of how universes are created, that's metaphysical or theological speculation.

Oh, I have an idea, alright. But in the second part of your statement above, you have correctly identified where the answers lie.

[Nils]

If we can't trust or senses and our ability to reason it means that any statement is void, including the one that says you can't trust your senses or reasoning obviously.
BUT we also know that there is more to the universe than what can be perceived solely by our senses.
We can't see/hear/taste and touch anything immaterial or anything outside our ability to see or hear YET we know that things do exist beyond these sense, correct?

Yes, we have good reasons to say that we know some things exist beyond our senses but only if we can get evidence of these things. To do that we have to build a model (or law) from our direct sense observations using the methods of natural science.
Other things that we can not get evidence of we have good reasons not to believe in. How could it be possible to get reliable knowledge from our intuitions, feelings or introspection? There is no way to test such information.
Nils

Any yet, that is how science discovers things.
If we "settled" on only what can be observed or "touched", science would never progress and never find the "undiscoverable".

I am not certain whether you agree with me or not. Science builds on evidence, the "toched" if you want, but can build laws and models of the "undiscoverable", if you by this term mean what is not directly sensed but can be verified or falsified using scientific methods. OK?

Nils

[Kurieuo]

What is it like to be a bat I wonder?

Well, conscious is a difficult question but how does that relate to what I wrote?

Besides, you wrote on Sep 18: "Nils, also I haven't overlooked your post. I'm short of time lately, but I appreciate anyone opposite to my position who does try take up the challenge to justify their view of the foundational nature of reality.
I'm not sure what reasons were offered that swing you towards Materialism/Physicalism (which we might use interchangeably), but right now I've just skimmed your post and will examine your words more closely when responding.".

I understood that as you would come back later on but when I read it again the meaning may be that you will come back after I have answered you question.
Please clarify so we can go forwards.

We cannot directly sense in the manner a bat senses the world around them. I wonder if your views on reliable knowledge, shared experience, testing and the like isn't too simple. Further to this, the premises that your senses are reliable and you can in fact test this, is well, quite rather a circular argument in that your testing depends upon your senses being reliable.

As for my response to you, I actually spent much time generating one before noticing that you didn't really take up the challenge. Then the boredom I spoke of kind of set in, and I have better things to do. Sorry, I don't mean to offend. It's just the way I feel after 20 years of the the same 'ol stuff (really, not much has really changed in arguments). So I prefer to dedicated my time to more productive things, get annoyed when I waste time responding to something for the nnnth time (not your fault, sometimes I can't help myself). For example, I was frustrated that I ended up spending time responding to certain challenges made with multiverse and first causes (same 'ol stuff to me), before realising that you basically brush away needing to have anything underpinning your materialistic beliefs. It seems to me you think that you can just assume without offering anything for them, except to reason through some pushbacks against assuming God. Nonetheless, despite this, I'll see where I was at and try finish it off, maybe open a different thread because multiverse/first cause stuff veers off more towards debating theism as I see.

So then, I found some of your response was generally already covered in my original post (e.g., see below "Now, regarding the last part of your post..."), other parts of your post did make me tire. Why? Well it seemed to me throughout much of your response that you are simply turning the tables with this is what you believe and justifying such by pushing against what you see as theistic arguments (rather than putting something on the table via making positive arguments for your beliefs).

What is wrong with that? Well, besides being a rather typical Atheist tact, even if "no God" was a logical possibility (understand I see God as a logically necessary being) and the world around us just was as Materialists believe, such doesn't rationally justify your beliefs. So I'd be interested in you putting justifications for your beliefs on the table, giving your reasons for them, rather than simply presenting a materialistic conception of the world and then swiping theistic views of reality off.

Perhaps you see no onus to do so, for you say there is a stalemate in the discussion. We really can't know either way. So, you end with "this is metaphysics and probably we will never get any evidence about which solution is correct." Yet, you're not being entirely honest here. You don't believe there is a stalemate at all, because you quite passionately believe in your Materialism. And, for me, I don't believe there is a stalemate at all. I see God as a logically necessary being in many ways that go beyond your simplistic summary of some first cause argument.

So then, given you clearly believe in your Materialism, put something on the damn table and stop simply pushing back on theistic logic like all you need to do is remove such arguments and you're rationally justified by default. You may want to rest upon fideism with your Materialism, however so long as we're clear this doesn't make you rationally justified, I can accept this. But, I don't buy that Materialism is the default rational position at all. There are many things that are more than meets the eye, and often taking things at first glance leads us to rather primitive and simplistic conclusions that actually don't represent the truth at all.


Now, regarding the last part of your post, this gets to the heart of the matter as I see which I'm also trying to get at above. For, it seems my opening post was somewhat prophetic of what your response would be regarding dead people coming back to life. Understand though, the questions are intended to more get people thinking about the nature of reality and other possibilities, and to really justify their world ontology. I feel you left the question open as to whether someone comes back from the dead depending upon what one believes. So you seem to again want to leave it in a stalemate, yet such belies your strong Materialistic beliefs which you so laid out for us. You don't believe it is a stalemate, so then put your reasons on the table for your beliefs, rather than merely stating what they are.

Let me try explain what I'm getting at again, only more in context to what you wrote on this:

There is a last question in your OP: "Q: How is it possible for someone to come back from the dead?"
I don't understand why it is important to you but my answer is:
In my materialistic view there has never been any living thing that has come back from the dead, by definition. But if I am mistaken and there is a God that created the universe and the laws I can't see any problem for him to wake somebody up from the dead or doing any miracle he wants.

Now I wrote in my opening post the typical response is one like "dead people don't come back to life." This is pretty much how you responded. If we read what I originally wrote in total, hopefully it becomes obvious you have kind of missed the point I was making. I'll quote the relevant part here:

For example, consider the movie The Matrix. Everyone in the "normal" world is hooked up to a machine and experiencing a type of virtual reality. The experiences are just as real as ours in life. And yet, people "could" potentially come back from the dead in this world, as long as the software is tweaked. People can perform what appears to be "magic" by zipping through the air -- suspending the "natural laws" which are really being largely maintained by a software program that runs the virtual world. Heck, Jesus Chris could actually even rise from the dead in such a world!

Yes, it's just a movie. But here is the thing. Who's to say that the life we experience isn't in some way similar--some form of Idealism. Perhaps the machine and software on which we're running is just God. And yet, the Atheist confidently asserts that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead -- because dead people don't come back to life -- because they ignore any questions to do with the nature of reality while assuming to know how reality works!

Atheism presumes to know reality without giving it any foundation. The world just is. It just runs. It is stable. It is predictable. It's finely tuned for life? "Well, duh--we wouldn't be here otherwise!" We just are. What we hear, see, feel, taste and smell is a true representation of the world. It is just NATURAL. Dead people don't rise from the dead.

An Atheistic reality precludes any questions about how reality might be. There is no "more than meets the eye". Is this not a shallow worldview? A kind of "putting on the blinders" or "burying one's head in the sand"? Some deep-seated faith in ignorance? Let's not ask questions about how reality works and just accept what seems apparent, because to ponder such questions is what? Scarey? Would it burst your bubble?

So as I said, you seem to want to leave this question as a stalemate like: "Why, if God exists, then yes, Jesus can be risen; if God doesn't, then no." And yet, you very much passionately believe in your materialistic view of the world. You presume you know what the world really is and where it ends. Which is why something like Jesus' resurrection is just not on your table of beliefs you are able to choose to believe in, perhaps no more than pink unicorns flying around the sky.

In summary, clearly you don't believe there is a stalemate at all. You seem content with your Materialism and you appear to accept it as default without requiring much if any justification. Rationally, such is no better than Christians raised Christian who believe in their default position in life without justification. It doesn't mean you or they are wrong, but it "passes the buck" so-to-speak. Getting back to what I said earlier, I don't buy that Materialism is the default rational position (there are really zero neutral positions as I see) and think only someone being rationally superficial, even gullible, would take the world at face value without looking more carefully at the face they see and pondering more deeply about it.