Originally Posted by Kinser79

Yes. I choose to have reality based views Eric. You should try it some time.

What is reality?

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Which would be required to have a double blind study to start with. Kinda how those work.

How so? Not so. You just have a controlled study to see if something is happening, or not. You don't need to make assumptions about the causes for how something works, just determine that something works, or not.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

How so? Not so. You just have a controlled study to see if something is happening, or not. You don't need to make assumptions about causes about how something works, just determine that something works, or not.

In other words you mean to say you don't understand how double blind studies work.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In other words you mean to say you don't understand how double blind studies work.

Just you saying so, don't make it so.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/double-blind+study

double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects"

Show me where in this statement it says anything about determining a physical explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

Show me in this definition either.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What is reality?

If you don't know what reality is then I don't know what to say to you. Of course then again it is probably a serious question that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If you don't know what reality is then I don't know what to say to you. Of course then again it is probably a serious question that doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

The whole purpose of metaphysics is to deal with this question. You just assume you know, and are done with it. That's the definition of an unreflective, un-curious person; the opposite of a Socratic attitude. Reality is whatever works for your purposes, or whatever is fed to you, and that's it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Just you saying so, don't make it so.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/double-blind+study

double-blind study - an experimental procedure in which neither the subjects of the experiment nor the persons administering the experiment know the critical aspects of the experiment; "a double-blind procedure is used to guard against both experimenter bias and placebo effects"

Show me where in this statement it says anything about determining a physical explanation.

I don't need to. A double blind study is one of many techniques of applying the scientific method. Which of course would start with a hypothesis based on observation of various phenomena and would constitute a physical explanation in the case of medicine.

Considering that medicine concerns itself with humans as physical biological beings. And all that jazz.

I stand by my statement you have no idea how a double blind study works.

ETA: I'm still waiting for that double blind study on healing chakra energies btw.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

I don't need to. A double blind study is one of many techniques of applying the scientific method. Which of course would start with a hypothesis based on observation of various phenomena and would constitute a physical explanation in the case of medicine.

Considering that medicine concerns itself with humans as physical biological beings. And all that jazz.

I stand by my statement you have no idea how a double blind study works.

These are nothing but assumptions on your part, and you haven't shown me at all that these assumptions are in the definition. You have lost the argument, but you never admit it. That's why you never learn anything, kinser.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The whole purpose of metaphysics is to deal with this question. You just assume you know, and are done with it. That's the definition of an unreflective, un-curious person; the opposite of a Socratic attitude. Reality is whatever works for your purposes, or whatever is fed to you, and that's it.

No reality is the physical universe and all its phenomena. I don't need metaphysics for that. I merely need to open my eyes and see it.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I have some observations concerning "reality"(and associated topics) if anyone is interested.

Prince

spill it out, baby; "show em what you got" I'm interested.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Plus, our "woo-woo" idea says that how alive the food is makes a difference. It's not just the chemical composition of nutrients that make for good nutrition, for example. If you process the life out of it, it is less valuable to the body; less easy for the body to digest and process.

You mean like cooking (processing)? Here's a little bit of trivia for you Eric. Cooking, or more precisely the harnessing of fire which led to cooking, is one of the major reasons you have a big brain (filled with nonsense though it is). Cooking begins to break down cellular walls in plant and animal material which assists us greatly in digestion and absorption. Most animal bodies need to devote more resources than we do to the digestive tract to maximize nutrition gained from food. Our early ancestors were no different however once they were able to control fire, they began to cook food (which tasted better and made them healthier). Later generations began to evolve with weaker and weaker digestive systems but bigger and bigger brains (cooking became a tool that replaced digestion). Their bodies now had more resources to devote to brain development.

In other words without "processing the life out of it" (which is a meaningless phrase), you wouldn't be producing hippy fairs and posting drek online.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

No reality is the physical universe and all its phenomena. I don't need metaphysics for that. I merely need to open my eyes and see it.

You see nothing. As Elton John said, "have your eyes really seen?" In your case, the answer is no, or you wouldn't make that statement. Case closed; gotta go now.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

These are nothing but assumptions on your part, and you haven't shown me at all that these assumptions are in the definition. You have lost the argument, but you never admit it. That's why you never learn anything, kinser.

If you say so Sunflower...if you say so.

That said no I don't think I have lost this argument. Not by a long shot. See I am not trying to change your mind. I come at this debate to point out all the flaws in your arguments...which quite honestly is almost too easy. And to prevent other people from taking up your extremely flawed positions.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You mean like cooking (processing)? Here's a little bit of trivia for you Eric. Cooking, or more precisely the harnessing of fire which led to cooking, is one of the major reasons you have a big brain (filled with nonsense though it is). Cooking begins to break down cellular walls in plant and animal material which assists us greatly in digestion and absorption. Most animal bodies need to devote more resources than we do to the digestive tract to maximize nutrition gained from food. Our early ancestors were no different however once they were able to control fire, they began to cook food (which tasted better and made them healthier). Later generations began to evolve with weaker and weaker digestive systems but bigger and bigger brains (cooking became a tool that replaced digestion). Their bodies now had more resources to devote to brain development.

In other words without "processing the life out of it" (which is a meaningless phrase), you wouldn't be producing hippy fairs and posting drek online.

Or one could start even before cooking a food item...like by killing the plant or animal in order to eat it to start with. I would say killing something before eating it would be enough to "process the life out of it".

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Or one could start even before cooking a food item...like by killing the plant or animal in order to eat it to start with. I would say killing something before eating it would be enough to "process the life out of it".

The killing part is irrelevant. Plants and animals gain the mineral and chemical compounds they need to survive from their surroundings. Eating is only one particular part of this. Breathing and solar absorption also provide important compounds. "Life" is simply a continuing chemical reaction that is not self-sustaining. Injecting human subjectivity into the definition is not necessary. That doesn't stop people like Eric from doing it of course.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

The killing part is irrelevant. Plants and animals gain the mineral and chemical compounds they need to survive from their surroundings. Eating is only one particular part of this. Breathing and solar absorption also provide important compounds. "Life" is simply a continuing chemical reaction that is not self-sustaining. Injecting human subjectivity into the definition is not necessary. That doesn't stop people like Eric from doing it of course.

Injecting plant and animal subjectivity, that is.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

If you say so Sunflower...if you say so.

That said no I don't think I have lost this argument. Not by a long shot. See I am not trying to change your mind. I come at this debate to point out all the flaws in your arguments...which quite honestly is almost too easy. And to prevent other people from taking up your extremely flawed positions.

It is easy to point out the flaws, if they are nothing more than statements of your opinion. That might convince your fellow believers, but not any honest reader.

I was going to attempt to convey my observations via a short-story narrative from the POV of a cat!, but for the sake of efficiency and my own laziness, I have decided to state my opinions in a more straight-forward manner.
[Note: Although I am able, I'm not as inclined as some to cut-up every single concept into the smallest definable particular. I'm also not inclined towards an in-efficient back-and-forth of opinions concerning such matters]

So, if I had to break things down into a simple form, I believe I would say that, although I fully understand the reasoning and possible desires to recognize one's "Physical Reality" as "Reality", I would say that my "Reality" is not one that is primarily concerned with what something "is". Instead, I'm more concerned with what something "means"(to me, or someone else). "Meaning".

This is quite a different "Reality" than one that is comprised of and defined primarily by things. Instead, it is a "Reality" that is comprised of "relationships"(ie: associations). IOW, in what manner do I believe I am related to all of these other things? What do these relationships mean to me?

In a nut-shell, that is my "Reality".


Prince

PS: Hope that helps!

A CNN guest bit... My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out

This feels like an official church's response to an awakening. After a time of song and emotion, where you get salvation under a tent when the wandering preacher brings his show through, official, boring, staid, salvation through ritual and responsible behavior preachers try to restore their position of authority.

I started reading the above article as the title reminded me a bit of someone, but it left me with a bit of a bad aftertaste. There is more than one basic approach to religion. After reading this through, I find myself in sympathy with those who are searching without kowtowing to doctrines. I'm one of those who has tasted many traditions, who has found some wisdom in many of them, but is unable to immerse myself in any of the prepackaged theologies.

As a devout agnostic, I'm not in a good place to lecture to believers, but I don't know that I'd recommend this guy, either.

Originally Posted by B Butler

There is more than one basic approach to religion. After reading this through, I find myself in sympathy with those who are searching without kowtowing to doctrines. I'm one of those who has tasted many traditions, who has found some wisdom in many of them, but is unable to immerse myself in any of the prepackaged theologies.

You find yourself in sympathy with me then? If so that would be refreshing experience for me for a change, on this thread.

In any case, I'm with you that far.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You mean like cooking (processing)? Here's a little bit of trivia for you Eric. Cooking, or more precisely the harnessing of fire which led to cooking, is one of the major reasons you have a big brain (filled with nonsense though it is). Cooking begins to break down cellular walls in plant and animal material which assists us greatly in digestion and absorption. Most animal bodies need to devote more resources than we do to the digestive tract to maximize nutrition gained from food. Our early ancestors were no different however once they were able to control fire, they began to cook food (which tasted better and made them healthier). Later generations began to evolve with weaker and weaker digestive systems but bigger and bigger brains (cooking became a tool that replaced digestion). Their bodies now had more resources to devote to brain development.

In other words without "processing the life out of it" (which is a meaningless phrase), you wouldn't be producing hippy fairs and posting drek online.

Cooking is a fine art. Some believe with Alan Watts that "a fish who has died for you, and is not well cooked, has died in vain." Cooking poorly and overcooking indeed takes the life out of food, but good cooking does help digestion. Part of good cooking is putting your OWN life into the food, by paying attention and loving it. So cooking, is actually hippy woo-woo. But some others feel that not cooking makes food more powerful. There are whole organizations dedicated to that. Personally, I'm not too well inclined to either course, but I respect those who are. Brain development is a good thing, but brains are only the external expressions of the inner intelligence of life or soul, as we call it. In any case, I am grateful to be producing hippy fairs (what could be a greater thing than something hippy, except that some Gen Xers feel compelled for poor reasons to react against it; too bad), and to be posting truth online.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I was going to attempt to convey my observations via a short-story narrative from the POV of a cat!, but for the sake of efficiency and my own laziness, I have decided to state my opinions in a more straight-forward manner.
[Note: Although I am able, I'm not as inclined as some to cut-up every single concept into the smallest definable particular. I'm also not inclined towards an in-efficient back-and-forth of opinions concerning such matters]

So, if I had to break things down into a simple form, I believe I would say that, although I fully understand the reasoning and possible desires to recognize one's "Physical Reality" as "Reality", I would say that my "Reality" is not one that is primarily concerned with what something "is". Instead, I'm more concerned with what something "means"(to me, or someone else). "Meaning".

This is quite a different "Reality" than one that is comprised of and defined primarily by things. Instead, it is a "Reality" that is comprised of "relationships"(ie: associations). IOW, in what manner do I believe I am related to all of these other things? What do these relationships mean to me?

In a nut-shell, that is my "Reality".


Prince

PS: Hope that helps!

That's a good point. The initial metaphysical question may be "what is reality," but we often discover that what "is" can't be pinned down; that it is fluid in some manner, and also that what it is, depends on we who are asking the question; or as you say, it's relationship to me as the one asking. And what is meaningful, is something that "matters" to me, which is why I am focusing on it or paying attention to it. We learn and remember things more easily that are important to us, for example. Reality is also that which we notice. Maybe that's the definition of "matter," what matters to us.

Or as Bill Clinton said, it depends on what the definition of is, is.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You find yourself in sympathy with me then? If so that would be refreshing experience for me for a change, on this thread.

Shhh. I was attempting to imply some sympathy without explicitly stating it. If I express too much sympathy the implied existence of reality might slip and the universe could cease to exist. Wouldn't want that to happen.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Shhh. I was attempting to imply some sympathy without explicitly stating it. If I express too much sympathy the implied existence of reality might slip and the universe could cease to exist. Wouldn't want that to happen.

Don't worry, I'm still conscious. My mind is still functioning

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Don't worry, I'm still conscious. My mind is still functioning

Okay functioning mind. Explain the Hexaflexagon using silly new-age logic.