Does Man Exist?

This is where one has to object to your direction.

You can claim your supernatural/religious "reality" without objection from me. I won't demand evidence or logic.

But here your "reality is whatever you wish to make it" is a fundamental denial of our ability to observe the universe. In other words, a statement asserting that all science is crap.

That is a serious problem.

 

There are untold numbers of "not-science" directions.

Nobody can possibly understand them all.

What is missing from "not-science" is any method of verification, validation or even just meaningful comparison. If such existed, the number of "not-science" directions would be reduced to some large, but countable number with some basic differentiating ideas.

Also, there may be areas of science that you know about, but you have made a good number of very basic mistakes in your comments on science.

 

This is understood and does not imply a supernatural. We don't have to remember to make our heart beat. We have systems that are trainable and can operate in whole or in part without a lot of conscious calculation.

Thus even common activities such as catching a ball can be improved with practice.

 

The state of flow tends to occur when a learned behaviour that has been practiced repeatedly becomes a high level skill.

 

I think this "constantly changing" idea gets used in ways that are nonsensical.

We learned a better explanation for the physics of Newton. But, relativity doesn't mean that Newton's physics no longer works. It just means we now know limits of Newton's physics. So, we use Newton's physics as much as possible, because it is a lot easier and still gives the right answers within the limits we know.

We learn how to alter dna. That is a change. But, it certainly doesn't mean that our "reality" changed. It just means we learned new methods.

Change does not mean anything more than that scientists and engineers continue to advance our capabilities and understanding.

Attempting to use that advancement as a justification for trashing all human knowledge is just plain IDIOTIC.

 

You keep reading into my meaning. I am saying that it is critical to use your intellect, so much so that I have suggested there is a better way to make use of such.

Every tool has its limits, right? You are not going to use a hammer to try to get through a foot thick concrete wall. When you look up into the stars at night or out into the ocean, the mind doesn't even bother attempting to grasp the enormity of what it is seeing. This is why so many people find both of these activities so relaxing.

 

Your focus on the supernatural isn't "better".

I'm also not going to use religion to determine how to produce food, improve travel, create new medical solutions and otherwise improve life on Earth.

 

Everything [knowable] changes so your definition is correct in part. But it has many other meanings, as well.

 

One thing on which I could find general agreement among people, nonetheless, is that this contention from your recent reply-- that the question of our existence, versus that of God, "was just an exercise," as if it was not of great importance to whatever you had intended to be the subject of this thread-- does not jibe, with your OP:

So, not only then, are you calling your own, thread opening paragraph, essentially a red herring, but you go immediately into contradictory "logic," to prove that fish of an argument. You say that "all Time exists at the same time," but then rely on time, as we conventionally understand it, to try to "round us right out of existence," by claiming that that we have only been here "for a very short period." Ahem; if your first posit is correct, then your second one is blatantly false: if all time simultaneously exists, that would include the future, and so it would be erroneous to say that humans have been, for only 200,000 years, unless you could accurately predict our writing out of history, in our own impression of the near future (which, of course, you cannot). If man will be around in million years, even if in some other form, then we already have been, according to your argument, and so we could not just be "rounded out." If, however, your second argument has any merit, even to be considered, it would disprove your first assertion, about time.

I guess, then, it was good that none of that was supposed to be anything more than an "exercise," as it is nothing but an example of specious logic-- which brings me back to the central question of my post, which you do not seem capable of answering: what's your point?

The only way that this seems to relate to your OP, is that it is also, poorly explained. How is our "incredible" limitation, in communication, caused by each of our realities differing, in some respects? For most communicative purposes, these differences do not come predominantly into play; they exert more of a subtle effect. We could discuss politics, for example, and in both of our realities, we live in the United States (for the sake of argument), and Joe Biden is our President, and he is a member of the Democratic Party, etc., etc. Our opinions of all those things may differ, but if you have looked at any of the political forums, you will have noticed that it is quite possible for humans to communicate those differences in their understandings, in their "relative realit(ies)."

This is what I meant, when I asked about the pragmatic application, of whatever idea you are trying to maintain. Thus far, I see no point, to your "argument." It is not that "the Absolute," as you put it, doesn't "resonate" with me-- I am asking what it is you wish to discuss, about it. All you seem able to say, is that "it is." This does not really prove your other statements, such as, that we neither do, nor don't exist, but just "are." Without putting that statement into some context, it is essentially meaningless, and can be rounded out of any debate.

 

The point of this is to chat about interesting things with interesting folks. What other point could there be?

One thing I have learned from being on forums like this over the past thirty years is that the chances of changing somebody else's mind approaches zero [and why would you want to anyway?]. People are who they are because of the infinite number of experiences they have had. You can NEVER understand another person's motivations because there are too many and they are all intertwined.

This is for amusement only. As well, I enjoy sharing my perspective with others because there are few who have taken the path I have taken who are willing to engage with others. Most people react like people have here. Why that is the case is beyond me, but I ALWAYS enjoy when another contributor brings an alternative perspective. Otherwise, what's the point?