Submitted by Gmroo t3_zdfsu4 in philosophy
Reply to comment by VitriolicViolet in The hard problem of metaphysics: figuring out if other phenomena exist in our universe that like consciousness require we bear a specific metaphysical relation to them - i.e. you can't know of consciousness without being conscious. by Gmroo
> assuming anything 'discovered' via psychedelics is actually anything in the first place.
How might the two of us simultaneously be talking about something that has no existence? Us talking about it requires a kind of existence, and us coming to talk about it presumably requires a force of some kind (especially since it has happened simultaneously).
> apart from self-reflection there isnt anything there, as someone who has done a pretty large amount of a variety of hallucinogens ive never had an ego-death, met entities of any variety, felt any connection to nature or the universe or any of the other typical experiences (and ive done 1300ug doses of LSD).
Do you honestly think that the entirety of reality is what you have experienced (or, that you have experienced the entirety of reality)?
> personally i havent seen anything of any objective quality to psychedelics, they are interesting as hell but they cant tell you anything part of you didnt already know.
How did you determine that it is a fact that what you experienced was not objective? I will go way out on a limb and take a wild guess: was consciousness involved in the acquisition (and possibly manufacture) of that fact(?) in any way?
> > > > Edit: i am autistic, maybe thats why i have never had any of those experiences?
I dunno man, you seem quite neurotypical to me.
>How might the two of us simultaneously be talking about something that has no existence? Us talking about it requires a kind of existence,
The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity. Take magic for example: Shooting a fireball by saying a few words and willing the thing into existence or lifting a rock with nothing but the power of your mind can't be done in real life, but we can conceive of a reality where it might be possible.
>and us coming to talk about it presumably requires a force of some kind (especially since it has happened simultaneously).
Coincidence. No outside force necessary.
> The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity.
What meaning do you ascribe to the word "real"?
Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?
> Take magic for example: Shooting a fireball by saying a few words and willing the thing into existence or lifting a rock with nothing but the power of your mind can't be done in real life, but we can conceive of a reality where it might be possible.
Seems reasonable, but examples in the physical realm is playing on easy - how about metaphysical questions like is there a God(s)?
>What meaning do you ascribe to the word "real"?
"actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" (from Google)
Tangible, touchable, interact-able, experience-able. Perhaps more specifically "as pertains to reality"
For the specific use "...any real capacity." it means that just because you can think of it and make it "real" in a sense (real within a story, lore for a game, etc.), doesn't mean that it is something you can find in reality and interact with.
>Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?
Yes, just because you can conceive of something doesn't automatically make it a reality somewhere in the universe. You have to find it and prove that it exists first. You can postulate ways that it might exist (done often in science before the actual discovery of something) but to say that it for sure exists before you have actual evidence is folly. You can only say that it might exist or even very much probably exists. Which leads to your next question...
>Seems reasonable, but examples in the physical realm is playing on easy - how about metaphysical questions like is there a God(s)?
Personally, I believe there are no gods, nothing supernatural. Everything is natural and anything that seems supernatural is simply something we don't yet understand well enough to explain via natural laws. Therefore, it is reasonable to be skeptical of any claim about a god or gods. I can take the believer at their word when they describe aspects of their god, since that is what they believe about it and doesn't really affect me but when they start saying that I must believe in their god or such and such thing will happen I need proof. As far as I'm concerned they are just believers in a fantasy, until they can provide proper evidence. I myself tried to provide proper evidence for a believe in the christian god and that simply wasn't possible.
I thought I asked some good questions, would you be willing to reply?
> "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" (from Google) > > > > Tangible, touchable, interact-able, experience-able. Perhaps more specifically "as pertains to reality" > > > > For the specific use "...any real capacity." it means that just because you can think of it and make it "real" in a sense (real within a story, lore for a game, etc.), doesn't mean that it is something you can find in reality and interact with.
Are thoughts real?
>>> The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity.
>> Is this claim (...an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists...) "real"? Is it true?
> Yes, just because you can conceive of something doesn't automatically make it a reality somewhere in the universe.
"The conception of an idea does not necessarily mean that it exists in any real capacity" is real, exist, and is true though?
> Personally, I believe there are no gods, nothing supernatural. Everything is natural and anything that seems supernatural is simply something we don't yet understand well enough to explain via natural laws. Therefore, it is reasonable to be skeptical of any claim about a god or gods. I can take the believer at their word when they describe aspects of their god, since that is what they believe about it and doesn't really affect me but when they start saying that I must believe in their god or such and such thing will happen I need proof. As far as I'm concerned they are just believers in a fantasy, until they can provide proper evidence. I myself tried to provide proper evidence for a believe in the christian god and that simply wasn't possible.
What's your take on abortion rights?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments