Christ Centered Gamer

Chozon1 wrote:Your hypothetical example only changes the concept of the thing, not the thing itself.

Ah, but what is a "thing" except what people perceive it to be? To the aforementioned tribe, you could be carrying a strange box of unknown materials which contains one side that lights up, and can emit noise. But from your perspective and knowledge, it's an MP3 player. What we may regard as a hole in the ground at the base of a tree they could consider to be a toilet. It's all a matter of perspective, culture and experience.

Keep in mind, though, that in the example I provided above, I was introducing an absolutely alien concept. We can teach primitive tribesmen how to use MP3 players. We can't teach colorblind people - or dogs, or aliens, or whatever - about colors they can't perceive. Or likewise, how would you describe music to someone - or an entire race of beings, for that matter - who is deaf? In cases like this, the thing itself is unchanged - it's the way that the object is perceived that varies.

Chozon1 wrote: The tribe couldn't comprehend planes, cars, or computers, but does that mean I should morally question their existence?

Why should you? You have knowledge that they lack.

Chozon1 wrote: I guess my question is...logically, why couldn't the tribe be wrong?

From your perspective, they would be. From theirs, they would have no idea what you're talking about. They may not necessarily disagree with you - they may simply dismiss you as a madman, raving about things that, to their limited perspective, simply doesn't exist.

You know, this is making me wonder if missionaries have to deal with scenarios like this when talking about God....

The Settlers of Catan?

Nuclear potatoes in Minecraft?

Emwok wrote:Nuclear potatoes in Minecraft?

Nuclear what?

ScotchRobbins wrote:The Settlers of Catan?

I've played (and own) the junior version, and it is a popular game in our household. I've never played the full version, but I understand that it is quite good!

Emwok wrote:Nuclear potatoes in Minecraft?

Since I don't play the game, sure. Have at it.

ScotchRobbins wrote: Nuclear what?

Sstavix wrote:Ah, but what is a "thing" except what people perceive it to be? To the aforementioned tribe, you could be carrying a strange box of unknown materials which contains one side that lights up, and can emit noise. But from your perspective and knowledge, it's an MP3 player. What we may regard as a hole in the ground at the base of a tree they could consider to be a toilet. It's all a matter of perspective, culture and experience.

Keep in mind, though, that in the example I provided above, I was introducing an absolutely alien concept. We can teach primitive tribesmen how to use MP3 players. We can't teach colorblind people - or dogs, or aliens, or whatever - about colors they can't perceive. Or likewise, how would you describe music to someone - or an entire race of beings, for that matter - who is deaf? In cases like this, the thing itself is unchanged - it's the way that the object is perceived that varies.

A thing is more than the concept of what it is; otherwise, stuff wouldn't exist outside of the perspective. Take that alien race that can't hear; music doesn't just exist aurally, it's a real, physical vibration. They could feel music, even the various pitches, even if they couldn't hear it. It still exists, even for them, regardless of their perception. Our concepts may influence what we think about something, but it does not change what the something is. Dogs may not be able to call green, green, but they can distinguish colors, because different colors are real.

Suppose I were to walk up and severely kick you in the pants. I then firmly believe in my mind that I walked up and hugged you. What actually happened, and does my conception of it change reality?

Sstavix wrote:Why should you? You have knowledge that they lack.

True. But if our concept of a thing defines it, our perception of it actually changes it, how can I not question whether those things actually exist?

Sstavix wrote:From your perspective, they would be. From theirs, they would have no idea what you're talking about. They may not necessarily disagree with you - they may simply dismiss you as a madman, raving about things that, to their limited perspective, simply doesn't exist.

You know, this is making me wonder if missionaries have to deal with scenarios like this when talking about God....

Maybe so. But perspectives bedimmed, which is actually reality? Do planes stop existing, even mentally, because someone refuses to accept their existence?

Have you ever heard of the Planescape campaign setting for D&D? It's an interesting one set in the Outer Planes. One of the more fascinating aspects is the existence of factions, which are basically groups united around common philosophies. For some reason, I thought of them while discussing philosophy with you....

Chozon1 wrote: Our concepts may influence what we think about something, but it does not change what the something is.

Ah, but aren't our perceptions limited to our own senses and experiences? Suppose we encounter a creature that perceives broader aspects of the spectrum of light than we do (in fact, we have - butterflies can see ultraviolet light, and their wing patterns appear much different to their senses than they do to ours). Does that mean their reality is more "real" than the way we perceive it?

Chozon1 wrote:
Suppose I were to walk up and severely kick you in the pants. I then firmly believe in my mind that I walked up and hugged you. What actually happened, and does my conception of it change reality?

To my reality, you would have kicked me in the pants. To others, it depends on how they perceive reality. Perhaps I'm in a society where a swift kick in the pants is a sign of affection - the equivalent of a hug - and you're a native of this land. My hostile reaction to your caring gesture may catch others around us quite off guard.

Chozon1 wrote:
True. But if our concept of a thing defines it, our perception of it actually changes it, how can I not question whether those things actually exist?

Question away. Question everything. Because, ultimately, you will draw one of two conclusions. 1) The topic in question is undeniably true, and you can adopt it into your worldview, or 2) the topic in question is false, and you can dismiss it as such.

Chozon1 wrote:
Maybe so. But perspectives bedimmed, which is actually reality? Do planes stop existing, even mentally, because someone refuses to accept their existence?

Perhaps a better question would be does a plane stop existing if everyone refuses to accept its existence? Or likewise, does a plane - or object - exist simply because someone can think of it?

Star Wars VII?

Star Wars the TTRPG?

Sstavix wrote:Have you ever heard of the Planescape campaign setting for D&D? It's an interesting one set in the Outer Planes. One of the more fascinating aspects is the existence of factions, which are basically groups united around common philosophies. For some reason, I thought of them while discussing philosophy with you....

I've heard of it, mostly because of Planescape: Torment, but I don't really have any idea what it is.

Sstavix wrote:Ah, but aren't our perceptions limited to our own senses and experiences? Suppose we encounter a creature that perceives broader aspects of the spectrum of light than we do (in fact, we have - butterflies can see ultraviolet light, and their wing patterns appear much different to their senses than they do to ours). Does that mean their reality is more "real" than the way we perceive it?

I wouldn't say so. There are things beyond our physical senses, yet we still can perceive them, inexplicably. Same with experiences; I don't have to do something, or have something done near me or to me, to acknowledge it, or understand it. I know the moon exists though I've never been there, or seen it up close. I know that mass is composed of atoms and molecules, though I cannot see them or feel them, and have no real reason in my experience to trust scientists.

Continuation, women can perceive more shades of color than men, typically. That doesn't mean those colors exist only to them.

Sstavix wrote:To my reality, you would have kicked me in the pants. To others, it depends on how they perceive reality. Perhaps I'm in a society where a swift kick in the pants is a sign of affection - the equivalent of a hug - and you're a native of this land. My hostile reaction to your caring gesture may catch others around us quite off guard.

I disagree; in any reality, I would've kicked you in the pants. The meaning behind it might be different (though I would...dislike living in a society where that meant "hello"), but it wouldn't have changed what happened.

Sstavix wrote:Question away. Question everything. Because, ultimately, you will draw one of two conclusions. 1) The topic in question is undeniably true, and you can adopt it into your worldview, or 2) the topic in question is false, and you can dismiss it as such.

I cannot, I don't want to, live that way. No one does. It would drive you insane. When you woke up today, did you question whether your bed existed? Or whether your family loved you? Bleeps no. I didn't either. If you did, it would slowly make you doubt everything, even if you continually concluded your bed did exist and your family did love you, or whether the sun was a star or a giant entity, it would open up the possibility that those things could change.

Sstavix wrote:Perhaps a better question would be does a plane stop existing if everyone refuses to accept its existence? Or likewise, does a plane - or object - exist simply because someone can think of it?

Which implies that we control reality with our minds, rather than just experience it. And I can't really agree with that. Also, humans are not Orks.

Chozon1 wrote:
I've heard of it, mostly because of Planescape: Torment, but I don't really have any idea what it is.

It's a campaign setting for 2nd Edition D&D, although I'm sure someone has adapted it for more modern rulesets as well.

Chozon1 wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Ah, but aren't our perceptions limited to our own senses and experiences? Suppose we encounter a creature that perceives broader aspects of the spectrum of light than we do (in fact, we have - butterflies can see ultraviolet light, and their wing patterns appear much different to their senses than they do to ours). Does that mean their reality is more "real" than the way we perceive it?

I wouldn't say so. There are things beyond our physical senses, yet we still can perceive them, inexplicably.

Are you suggesting that you have some form of psychic sixth sense?

Chozon1 wrote: Same with experiences; I don't have to do something, or have something done near me or to me, to acknowledge it, or understand it. I know the moon exists though I've never been there, or seen it up close. I know that mass is composed of atoms and molecules, though I cannot see them or feel them, and have no real reason in my experience to trust scientists.

Continuation, women can perceive more shades of color than men, typically. That doesn't mean those colors exist only to them.

That may be the case, but can it be demonstrably proven? In other words, unless someone shows me one of these unknown colors, why shouldn't I assume that other people are simply making stuff up or lying to me? Terry Pratchett has written about the "color of magic" called octarine in some of his early Discworld novels - should I assume that color exists simply because he wrote about it? Or does it actually exist because he did write about it?

Chozon1 wrote:

Sstavix wrote:To my reality, you would have kicked me in the pants. To others, it depends on how they perceive reality. Perhaps I'm in a society where a swift kick in the pants is a sign of affection - the equivalent of a hug - and you're a native of this land. My hostile reaction to your caring gesture may catch others around us quite off guard.

I disagree; in any reality, I would've kicked you in the pants. The meaning behind it might be different (though I would...dislike living in a society where that meant "hello"), but it wouldn't have changed what happened.

I'll give you that point. I realized how silly my analogy was a few hours after I wrote it.

Chozon1 wrote: I cannot, I don't want to, live that way. No one does. It would drive you insane. When you woke up today, did you question whether your bed existed? Or whether your family loved you? Bleeps no. I didn't either. If you did, it would slowly make you doubt everything, even if you continually concluded your bed did exist and your family did love you, or whether the sun was a star or a giant entity, it would open up the possibility that those things could change.

You don't need to question everything every day. That would be silly! But there are some things you should question at least once a lifetime, at least. As Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." I'm of the belief that by asking honest questions, you can achieve a much better understanding of the topic at hand, and a stronger testimony in the long run.

Chozon1 wrote: Which implies that we control reality with our minds, rather than just experience it. And I can't really agree with that. Also, humans are not Orks.

We may not control reality, but we certainly can control how we perceive it. Consider optimism vs. pessimism, for example. One quote I heard a while ago (not sure who to attribute it to...) "The optimist feels that we are living in the best of all worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

Sstavix wrote:Are you suggesting that you have some form of psychic sixth sense?

Who do you think I am? Haley Joel Osmont?

No. No I'm not. I'm suggesting that everyone who walks on the earth has a sense of spiritual things beyond what they can explain. We may refuse to acknowledge it, but I really do think humans were given the ability to sense spiritual stuffs.

Sstavix wrote:That may be the case, but can it be demonstrably proven? In other words, unless someone shows me one of these unknown colors, why shouldn't I assume that other people are simply making stuff up or lying to me? Terry Pratchett has written about the "color of magic" called octarine in some of his early Discworld novels - should I assume that color exists simply because he wrote about it? Or does it actually exist because he did write about it?

Depends on your call of "demonstrably proven". If you put 50 men and 50 women in a room, those women should be able to see shades the men could not. Are you willing to call all 50 women liars? Or delusional?

I would say the color doesn't exist at all, because that's a fictional universe. It exists only in our hearts or minds, unlike real colors or objects.

Sstavix wrote:You don't need to question everything every day. That would be silly! But there are some things you should question at least once a lifetime, at least. As Thomas Jefferson once famously said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." I'm of the belief that by asking honest questions, you can achieve a much better understanding of the topic at hand, and a stronger testimony in the long run.

Tommy Jefferson was a Deist, so clearly he asked the question a few too many times. I do agree in principle, but I'll stick to my guns that that mindset will land you in trouble more often than not. Sometimes, we just need to trust, or accept that a thing is.

Sstavix wrote:We may not control reality, but we certainly can control how we perceive it. Consider optimism vs. pessimism, for example. One quote I heard a while ago (not sure who to attribute it to...) "The optimist feels that we are living in the best of all worlds. The pessimist fears this is true."

OK. But that in and of itself proves that belief does not equal truth, or vice verses, by the bare fact that we cannot control reality, only how we see it. The optimist cannot make only good things happen in life, just as much as the pessimist cannot make only negative things happen. They're stuck in reality, where stuff happens outside of our control.

Chozon1 wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Are you suggesting that you have some form of psychic sixth sense?

Who do you think I am? Haley Joel Osmont?

No. No I'm not. I'm suggesting that everyone who walks on the earth has a sense of spiritual things beyond what they can explain. We may refuse to acknowledge it, but I really do think humans were given the ability to sense spiritual stuffs.

I was hoping you'd answer along those lines. I quite agree - I was testing you, and you passed quite well!

Chozon1 wrote: Depends on your call of "demonstrably proven". If you put 50 men and 50 women in a room, those women should be able to see shades the men could not. Are you willing to call all 50 women liars? Or delusional?

Depends... are the majority of them Justin Bieber fans?

To be honest with you, I've been increasingly losing my faith in humanity, especially after the last election cycle. I don't really who who or what to trust any more. It certainly isn't science, which seems to have a tendency to do a complete 180 on various topics every time you open a newspaper.... Seems to me like the only thing you can put your faith into is God.

Chozon1 wrote:I would say the color doesn't exist at all, because that's a fictional universe. It exists only in our hearts or minds, unlike real colors or objects.

It may exist only in our imaginations, but then it does exist in some shape, way or form. So then the question is, does existence equal reality?

Chozon1 wrote: Tommy Jefferson was a Deist, so clearly he asked the question a few too many times. I do agree in principle, but I'll stick to my guns that that mindset will land you in trouble more often than not. Sometimes, we just need to trust, or accept that a thing is.

"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth."
"What truth?"
"There is no spoon."

Chozon1 wrote: OK. But that in and of itself proves that belief does not equal truth, or vice verses, by the bare fact that we cannot control reality, only how we see it. The optimist cannot make only good things happen in life, just as much as the pessimist cannot make only negative things happen. They're stuck in reality, where stuff happens outside of our control.

Ah, but then we get back to the philosophical questions about the nature of reality. (I've been enjoying this, incidentally!) I'm reminded of the question "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" In other words, if no one is around to perceive a "reality," then can we say that it exists at all? This is probably where faith comes in.

Sstavix wrote:I was hoping you'd answer along those lines. I quite agree - I was testing you, and you passed quite well!

Nice. XD

Sstavix wrote:Depends... are the majority of them Justin Bieber fans?

To be honest with you, I've been increasingly losing my faith in humanity, especially after the last election cycle. I don't really who who or what to trust any more. It certainly isn't science, which seems to have a tendency to do a complete 180 on various topics every time you open a newspaper.... Seems to me like the only thing you can put your faith into is God.

I would agree with that as well, with the caveat that living on earth requires trusting people. I think God wants us too. Not like..."I totally trust you guy who wants to sell me candy down that dark alley" but. You know. Science flip-flopping has been a point of humor for me since I was old enough (20) to pay attention to the news. Especially eggs and coffee. Not a year goes by that eggs and coffee are either miracle foods or instant death. XD

Sstavix wrote:It may exist only in our imaginations, but then it does exist in some shape, way or form. So then the question is, does existence equal reality?

I wouldn't say it's fair to use "exist" in that way. Unless the thought is fully fleshed out. It exists [as a fictional idea/item]. So to the question of "does existence as a fictional thought equal that thought being reality" I would say no. Otherwise, my parent's were lying when the told me there were no monsters under my bed.

Sstavix wrote:"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth."
"What truth?"
"There is no spoon."

Which worked for Neo, the fictional character. But it doesn't work in the real world. That spoon exists.

Sstavix wrote:Ah, but then we get back to the philosophical questions about the nature of reality. (I've been enjoying this, incidentally!) I'm reminded of the question "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" In other words, if no one is around to perceive a "reality," then can we say that it exists at all? This is probably where faith comes in.

I've never had a problem saying "yes" to that question. Too much existentialist brain drippy garbage for me. The question implies that either reality is only a concept of the mind, or that the world only exists while we are perceiving it. Neither of those make sense. Things do not exist/stop existing because I'm not there to experience them. It's a very self-centered idea.

Forgot a couple questions up there....

ScotchRobbins wrote:Star Wars VII?

I'm intrigued, especially with the announcement of the cast list. And I thought J.J. Abrams did a pretty good job with the Star Trek reboot, so it'll be interesting to see what happens with Star Wars.

Emwok wrote:Star Wars the TTRPG?

I've never played it. If the rules aren't overly complicated, though, and if run by the right person, I think it could be interesting....

Chozon1 wrote: I would agree with that as well, with the caveat that living on earth requires trusting people.

Really? Is that a law?

Chozon1 wrote:
I wouldn't say it's fair to use "exist" in that way. Unless the thought is fully fleshed out. It exists [as a fictional idea/item]. So to the question of "does existence as a fictional thought equal that thought being reality" I would say no. Otherwise, my parent's were lying when the told me there were no monsters under my bed.

Maybe there are monsters under your bed. When was the last time you cleaned it out under there? I've seen some dust bunnies that can bite your arm clean off!

Chozon1 wrote: Which worked for Neo, the fictional character. But it doesn't work in the real world. That spoon exists.

Ah, but is this the real world? Or merely an illusion? A prison for your mind, as it were....

Chozon1 wrote: I've never had a problem saying "yes" to that question. Too much existentialist brain drippy garbage for me. ... Things do not exist/stop existing because I'm not there to experience them. It's a very self-centered idea.

Two things came to me while reading this....

1) The concept of "self" is pretty much the only thing we can be certain of. We cannot experience the world from someone else's senses, memories and experiences. Others can certainly try to show things from their perspective, but we still end up filtering their writings (or recordings or what have you) through our own mental filters. So in one respect, reality is extremely self-centered, simply because we have no other "selves" to experience it with.

2) I find it amusing that you are dismissive about existentialism. To be honest, most of philosophy likely consists of pulling stuff out of your backsides. So we can discuss the veracity or usefulness of existentialism until the cows come home. But let's return to the question that started this whole philosophical discussion in the first place - is it real? Existentialism is a part of our reality - we can talk about it, obviously, so therefore it must exist! But is it true? And if not, does that mean that reality can be partially comprised of outright falsehoods?