I have noticed that people on the boards talk about things as 'real' and living 'real life'?

How many atheists read fiction? Is that real life?

How many atheists read scientific 'theories'? Are those real? or just real possibilities?

How many atheists masturbate? Is that real sex?

How about Video games? movies? tv? real life?

How many atheists have dreams? Plenty of dreams are explored in psychotherapists offices. Why? because it is pretty well accepted that they reveal facets of the psyche.

"Primitive" cultures have said for generations that the body holds memories and emotions in it. People poo poo'd that and now Psychotherapy and Modern Medicine very much accept the idea of "Somatized Emotions" (Emotions held in the body). Plenty of atheists still think this is B.S. and are behind the Science.

I find that a lot of atheists are behind all sorts of science that is out there.

Also a lot of science is 'counter intuitive' or 'illogical'. Science has discovered MANY things that work differently than would be instinctively expected. Not everything in life follows logic. Some relationships seem doomed to fail from the start, and yet somehow 'succeed'. Others seem destined for success and yet a surprise twist comes along.

I am all for science. I don't think it has all the answers and science is exploring a lot that will be revealed later through the wonders of studies. I don't have to wait for a scientific study to ask 'what if?'

Through the study of Feng Shui people in China, people said the environment impacts people. They had interesting ideas and some of it was not quite right, but then now there is the field of 'Environmental Psychology' and there are Designers who study psychology because psychology is so much a part of design.

Acupuncture for years was spoken about as if it was B.S. and then science validated it. Science validates, but often someone else dreams it first. Was acupuncture only real once science could prove it? Did it only start working once it was accepted by scientists?

Many things begin as an idea and then come into form. Is it only real once it is in form? Or is the idea real?

Some ideas seem logical and like they should work and then in reality there is a surprise and it does not work. Perhaps a miscalculation. Business ideas seem like they will work and then they do not, or like they will not work and they take off and surprise everyone.

Is reality so concrete that one group of people controls what is or is not real?

So many things in science began with a dream or someone following an instinct that they did not understand. Some conceived of that as spiritual. Others did not.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2012 11:44PM by wonderer.

wonderer Wrote:

>
> So many things in science began with a dream or
> someone following an instinct that they did not
> understand. Some conceived of that as spiritual.
> Others did not.

I'm not saying there isn't an example of this but all the same please provide an example.

I'll step in on this one.

The ring-structure of benzene was discovered by Friedrich August Kekule after a day-dream he had of a snake swallowing its tail and forming a ring.

Kekule had been working on the sturcture of Benzene so had a lot of data and ideas in and on his mind.

To get back to wanderer's original post, however, the structure of benzene was not settled by a day-dream. It was settled by hard science.

In the scientific marketplace of ideas your theories can come from anywhere--from dreams, astrological charts, tea leaves, or hunches. That OK. However the EVIDENCE you have to give for your theories has to be evidence available to all whether they trust you or your horoscope or not. That's the difference.

Logic is a way of reaching from premises to conclusions. But a person often intuits a conclusion and only then works to find the logical path from the premises to the intuited conclusion. If such a path can be found then the intuition has been validated. Sometimes the intuition is wrong.

Years ago at the U.S. Junior Chess Championship one of the hot young players came up with a brilliant idea in a certain position. Later he showed the idea to Bobby Fischer, at that point, arguably the strongest player ever. Fischer immediately said, "it's unsound." However it took Fischer a full five minutes of analyzing the position to find the refutation--to find out exactly WHY it was unsound. This is how it works--intuition gives you the idea but solid, bread-and-butter analysis finds whether or not the intuition was correct.

In religion we are often conditioned to have our intuition work in a certain way. Then we are told that the fact that our intuition came up with something is proof that it's true. The hard, logical, bread-and-butter analysis part is dispensed with. That, more than anything, is the difference between science and religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 12:07AM by baura.

You lay it out pretty well, however intuition, inspiration, or instinct is another way of explaining reactions that come as a result of ones knowledge and experience. In the example of Bobby Fisher his immediate response comes because his knowledge and experience tell him something is not right. It doesn't feel right to him because of his well trained mind.

There may be many example of this but I would argue that it is not the goals and dreams of the these people that lead to great discovery, although it helps tremendously. It is their knowledge and experience that are the fuel to accomplish their dreams, not inspiration.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You lay it out pretty well, however intuition,
> inspiration, or instinct is another way of
> explaining reactions that come as a result of ones
> knowledge and experience. In the example of Bobby
> Fisher his immediate response comes because his
> knowledge and experience tell him something is not
> right. It doesn't feel right to him because of his
> well trained mind.

Bingo! Intuition is the result of a lot of distilled experience-the more the better. The same with Kekule. He was an expert chemist with a LOT of experience. He had been wrestling with the problem of the structure of Benzene. At the time he had his daydream, probably nobody on earth had studied the problem more deeply than he had.

> There may be many example of this but I would
> argue that it is not the goals and dreams of the
> these people that lead to great discovery,
> although it helps tremendously. It is their
> knowledge and experience that are the fuel to
> accomplish their dreams, not inspiration.

Inspiration or intuition happen to the prepared mind. The preparation is experience and lots of it. Fischer had spent most of his waking life analyzing chess-he was consumed with it. Einstein wrestled with the problem of relativity since he was a teenager. It was only after he got his degree, however, that he had the "inspiration" to solve it.

Perhaps scientists could make a point to meet up with everyday people who have vivid dreams.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps scientists could make a point to meet up
> with everyday people who have vivid dreams.


Or, better yet, lucid dreams.

Those unwaking flights of fancy, in which we realize we
are dreaming, and so choose to fly without wings, or
find our soul mate, or solve esoteric mathematical puzzles.

Just be careful to avoid the electrical power lines, as
you soar like Peter Pan or Mary Poppins over St. Paul's dome.

UD

Scientists are "everyday people." Many of them have vivid dreams.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

See, wonderer, you used words to try to convey meaning. Your fingertips typed little pads that set characters in front of my eyes.

Logic is the most reliable way we have of understanding, conveying, or in any way controlling our situation.

We cannot dictate when or how the wind will blow. But we can adjust our sails to capture it.

http://skepdic.com/acupuncture.html


"...found no significant difference in response from those getting true acupuncture and those getting sham acupuncture, provide evidence against the accuracy of the traditional Chinese meridian map. It doesn't seem to matter where you stick the needles, whether you stick them in deeply or twirl them, or, as we shall see, whether you stick them in at all. The fact that it has been shown that the same effect can be induced from true acupuncture and fake acupuncture that doesn't stick needles into the subject casts doubt on the need to claim that some sort of mysterious energy, called chi, is needed to explain acupuncture's effects."

re: Acupuncture. - All you have to do is look at the evidence of it working online as well. Same google search of 'science and accupuncture' provides studies that shows it working in different contexts. I agree 'chi' cannot be proven. I agree many of the theories behind it cannot be proven (nor am I personally sure they are accurate), but the acupuncture itself can be proven none the less.

Also, if we are going to talk skepticism means something is not true, then we only have to look at man on the moon conspiracy theories. People doubt plenty of science and scientists argue things all the time. That said, acupuncture is relatively well accepted and respected compared to prior.

Also, let's remember science did not understand germs and medical professionals used to do surgeries without sterilization and deliver babies with the same tools they did autopsies with.

So again, even with the skeptic view of acupuncture, if tomorrow there is a study that says it works is it less real today than it is when a study proves it?

jacob...

Re "I'm not saying there isn't an example of this but all the same please provide an example."

For starters, why would any scientist study some of what they have studied? Take the Wright brothers for example. What had them study that possiblity when others had tried and failed?

What was Edison following? instinct?

I do know very specifically that one of the core farmers of potatoes followed 'spiritual hunches' and said he 'talked to plants'.

Especially with plants a lot of people are into spirituality and have done interesting things in that field - botany.

People follow 'hunches'. In this case that is my point, sorta like the 'I have a dream' vs. some sort of 'prophetic dream'. I may have to look into more specific stories of people following what they believe was 'God' or 'spirit' to create something or having some sort of 'prophetic' dream. Dreams and visions though tend to drive all sorts of creative people as well as business leaders.

There is the whole 'intuitive sense' that so many follow. Obviously religious people often project a ton onto it, like 'It is a God and that God has a form and that form wants this, etc...' which is not what I am speaking about in this context.

Good question though, I will ask further about it.

Oh, what I can say is that I talked for a while with a friend who was a business owner and scientist who was WELL respected ina particular state for his skill in math and other things and he very much drew on spirituality as a part of his work and studies and he studied things from Hinduism to Egyptian Spirituality to Islam. He designed a very innovated computer situation that last I heard was used internationally. He was very wealthy and worked heavily with his intuitive senses.

A lot of successful wall street companies contact people like an "Intuitive Advisor" Lara Day who they keep her on retainer at around 10 K a month. She has worked with Doctors to develop their intuition. There are also people like Carolyn Myss who was tested for her Medical Intuitive capabilities and was/is well respected for her work at diagnosing illnesses.

Will find some more info though and may post in another thread.

Point being that you can't just google a controversial subject, see that both sides have their "scientific" proponents, then pick and choose which side you want to be on without trying to read and understand the meat of the studies. Did you learn nothing from your (presumed) studies of Moronism?

wonderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Is reality so concrete that one group of people
> controls what is or is not real?
...


When such questions arise, it may be helpful to get
away from "groups" and from "people," by finding some
quiet, isolated spot and there re-thinking the question.

A couple of days walk into a sparsely inhabited wasteland
should do the trick -- or perhaps a small boat, out on
the water of a large lake or upon the sea.

Taste the sand -- try drink the salt water. See what
happens when you have no shade and no sun-screen.

A vision quest may not be such a bad idea. Take along a
flask of water and a handful of trail mix, and see just how
far you can get away from humanity, without endangering
yourself. Three days ought to be sufficient -- to ascertain
what reality is.


In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain...

UD

Why do I need to believe in or to worship god? To make me feel better or to make you feel better? It doesn't make me feel better, so I gave it up.

I will say this. We all process the world through our brains. I wonder how many prophets of old would be considered mental ill today?

dk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do I need to believe in or to worship god? To
> make me feel better or to make you feel better?

Nope. But in some instances such adherence will insure
your place in society. May insure the society itself.

Say that you're living on a southern island of the Japanese
Empire in October of 1944, with the U.S. forces approaching
closer every day. Whether or not you worship Amaterasu in
your heart of hearts, you might find it expedient to turn
out the cheer the kamikaze pilots, as they get into their
planes -- with only enough fuel for a one-way trip.

Either wave your flag and shout your support, or suffer
the consequences.

UD

I agree, in some societies you have to go along to get along and not be killed. I wonder how many mormons in Utah are doing just that?

dk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree, in some societies you have to go along to
> get along and not be killed. I wonder how many
> mormons in Utah are doing just that?


Not just to save yourself -- but in some instances,
to save the society around you.

I doubt that all of the participants in the Mountain
Meadows Massacre were 100% TBMs -- some may have been
frightened into participating, in order to save their
own reputations and lives in the local LDS community.

But others -- not willing killers -- may have joined
in the religious slaughter in hopes of saving their
"Deseret" from Johnston's approaching army.

In the end, they did save Brigham's theocracy -- not
by murdering gentiles in one wagon train, but by
banding together, joined by the ties of religion.

Only an example.
I'd just as soon they would have failed.

UD

dk -

This thread is about logic and what is real. It is not about if God is real or if you believe. I personally am agnostic. I have no need for you to believe in God. I have no need for anyone to believe in God.

My chief interest is in offering options and perspectives for those who may be interested in options between Atheism and Mormonism and Religion perspectives that are more commonly explored in American Culture.

Re: science and religion, yes, my point is that sometimes dreams are worth exploring and do not have to be coopted by religion and often work WITH science and are not mutually exclusive.

I did find a quote which I will post from Einstein in a separate thread since it seems it deserves more attention.

When we talk about "real" we are talking about understanding the fundamental nature of something.

So, when you ask a question like:

"How many atheists read fiction? Is that real life?"

I see questions that does not show an understanding what is being discussed when we are talking about "real". I wounder, why are atheists singled out about reading fiction, atheists understand the true nature of fiction, a story that is not true that was written to be read for enjoyment (an subjective truth), to give insights into other truths (both subjective and objective), etc. Fiction is real in the sense that the are "stories that are not true". You can find hard evidence that fiction exists, thus is real, in virtually any public library. Atheists reading fiction is real life, yes.

I look at those questions and wonder why they are even asked? They show a profound lack of understanding of the term "real", "Atheist", "fiction" of "life". They seem to be asked by someone that is trying to provoke controversy when the that someone does not have a fundamental understanding or the nature of the ideas.

When you ask questions like "Is logic always right?" I wonder where you get your ideas on logic. Questions like this indicate to me that your understanding of Logic comes from Star Trek. Logic works well in dealing with objective truths, not with subjective truths. When one understands the rules of logic, what is is intended to be used for and how it is used, and uses logic correctly, yes, it is always right.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 02:51AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> When one understands
> the rules of logic, what is is intended to be used
> for and how it is used, yes, it is always right.


Assuming that valid information is entered into the process,
and there is not a conflict of values which renders a
logical outcome impossible.

Say that I am about to be executed for a crime, and
the Governor holds the power of pardon. He knows that
I committed the crime, and under the law, should be
given the waiting lethal injection.

But the Governor also learns that I alone know where
the formula for an antidote to the vurrent raging
plague has been hidden.

Would it be logical for the Governor to stay the
execution? Or perhaps even pardon me, if I demanded it?

Attempting to rely upon logic in a situation with so many
variables and so many possible value judgments pending,
may not be the best course of action.

Logic would guide the objective Governor only so far,
and then he/she might rely upon other factors in making
the crucial decision.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > When one understands
> > the rules of logic, what is is intended to be
> used
> > for and how it is used, yes, it is always
> right.
>
>
> Assuming that valid information is entered into
> the process,
> and there is not a conflict of values which
> renders a
> logical outcome impossible.
>

Ah, you are holding logic responsible for flaws in the data. The logic is right, the data, thus the results are not. A computer program is nothing but logic. Provided the logic of the program is correct, it will give correct outcomes based on the data supplied. If the data supplied is flawed, that is not the fault of the logic and should not be blamed on the logic.

Some phrases I have heard "Garbage in, Garbage out", "Good Logic does not overcome bad data"

Of course, this was all covered when I said "When one understands the rules of logic, what is is intended to be used for and how it is used.


You are comparing apples to oranges.

Oh, yes, and saying that there are no logically valid solutions IS a logically valid answer.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 03:03AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> You are comparing apples to oranges.
...

No doubt I am. But we are human beings and we attempt
to employ the tools of logic in our messy human lives --
not just in doing checksum calculations for our PCs.

If the Governor knows that I am a certain kind of terrorist,
and that in every known case where leniency was rendered
to such people it has only caused greater social/political
problems, the Governor might "logically" conclude that
executing me was the obvious best course of action.

It is not a perfect application of logic. But there are
numerous instances in life in which we do the best we
can with what we have available at the moment.

The rules of logic may remain pristine, but our attempts
to productively apply the process may not always work well.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> ...
> > You are comparing apples to oranges.
> ...
>
> No doubt I am. But we are human beings and we
> attempt
> to employ the tools of logic in our messy human
> lives --
> not just in doing checksum calculations for our
> PCs.
>

Again, you are holding logic accountable for something you should not. It is not the fault of logic that humans can not apply it correctly. To try to claim: "humans are flawed in their ability to use logic, therefor logic does not provide the right answers" is a non sequitur.

Yes, humans make mistakes, but that is not the fault of "logic" and should not be blamed on logic.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 03:24AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...

> Yes, humans make mistakes, but that is not the
> fault of "logic" and should not be blamed on
> logic.

One last try here.

Suppose continuation of your very life depended upon your
applying logic correctly, in some very critical circumstance.

Would you make the attempt, knowing that you might fail in
the process? -- Knowing that you might not have the time,
ability or resources to even complete that effort?

If so, what would be your reasoning, that would lead you to
try and attempt such a problematic effort?

UD

My life, my ability to use logic correctly to save my life, and whether of not I would try to use logic have nothing to do with the validity of LOGIC in and of itself.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 03:38AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My life, my ability to use logic correctly to save
> my life, and whether of not I would try to use
> logic have nothing to do with the validity of
> LOGIC in and of itself.


AH! I think I finally understand.
Human beings can only use logic correctly when
they are certain that logic itself tells them
that they are indeed employing it correctly.

Otherwise, it will function as a useless tool.

Did I get it right this time?

UD

Again, a human's ability to correctly use logic has nothing to do with the validity of the principals of logic.

Humans can try to use logic whenever they want. If they are not using logic correctly, then they are not using valid logic.

Again, whether or not a human can use logic has nothing to do with the principals of logic.

You do realize that you continue to make the same logical flaw over and over right?

There is only one way to invalidate logic and to say that it gives the wrong results, and that is to show that a principal of logic, in an of itself, gives a flawed result.

How, if, why, when, a human uses logic does nothing to show logic, in and of itself is flawed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 03:57AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> You do realize that you continue to make the same
> logical flaw over and over right?
...

Only to the extent that you tell me so, and that I
have no particular argument in response to your insight.

Perhaps what I should be asking is where and how do
human beings learn to make use of logic correctly?

If you are a teacher of such knowledge you can do me a
great service by offering a thirty-second explanation.

UD

Ah, I see the nature of our problems with communications.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 04:01AM by MJ.

there are probably as many ways of viewing and assessing what is real or not as there are people, but all must be within social boundaries of cultural and systemic laws/rules (or be rejected, outcasts).

authority figures that leads society and therefore effects what is 'real' in some way or other, are distinct in authoritarian systems, and in science, and in religion, and in family. in bigger society, more abstract or fantasy-based authority may be useful or appealing for some of our brain cellular structures, therefore Jesus myths (xtianity), etc.

our quality level of empathy, flexibilty, family/tribe/mob bonds, sexuality, security, love, make or break what is reality in this world relative to others - and since only primitives are physical, this is where any philosophical discussion of what's real or not has any interest.

yours_truly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
>philosophical discussion of what's real or not has any interest.

Say that a scientist in the year 1900 tells a guy like me
that observing sub-atomic particles is a straightforward
activity, based upon the laws of physics.

Say that scientist's grandson, today, tells me that my
attempts to observe the location, mass, speed of a certain
sub-atomic particle will influence the data reported.

And, finally, say that some future scientist tells my
great-grandson that the instruction given to me was
incorrect, and that the scientific consensus has returned
to what it had been back in the year 1900.

Given that sort of flux in observation, analysis and
conclusions -- which of the two instructions was "real?"
Or, better put -- which of the two communicates reality?

UD

The Relativity of Wrong
By Isaac Asimov

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 03:35AM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have what is real, in regards to the
> "ultimate truth" and the idea that an observation
> is real, even though conclusions from that do not
> represent the ultimate truth.

Makes sense to me when "in" is substituted for your "and;"
otherwise I must simply admit your superior articulation
and give up my feeble effort to comprehend.

UD

Your inability to understand it is not my problem.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 04:01AM by MJ.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2012 03:30AM by MJ.