Why don't rationalists accept the subjective reality

[sarapr]

To me it makes perfect sense that no matter how consistent reality is or how objective it may seem, humans can never go beyond their own perceptions of reality. what ever they do, they're doing it within their own understanding of reality, even if their math works in real life, it is still happening within humans perceptions of reality. The science and its manifestation in reality are all happing in the mind so by defenition it makes them subjective and to think that the reality is objectively happing outside of their perception is to take a leap of faith cause there exists no way to know that for sure.

why don't rationalists understand this ? Like really, what causes this to happen? Or is it that I am wrong

[Nahm]

@sarapr Because it’s not rational, and there’s no perceiver and nothing perceived. “It” appears that way. There’s a point where rationality ends in each of us, where there is nothing to rationalize. 

What would be beyond human perception? Maybe, there’s no such thing, to go beyond. ‘Human perception’ is it’s self beyond what Is already. 

And then it turns out, objective is true. 

What a reality.

[abrakamowse]

You are not wrong. Rationalist have beliefs but they don't accept that is a belief. They think that there is an "objective reality".

They are members of the Rationalist Church Sect hehehehe...

Edited April 18, 2018 by abrakamowse

[Faceless]

4 minutes ago, abrakamowse said:

You are not wrong. Rationalist have beliefs but they don't accept that is a belief. They think that there is an "objective reality".

They are members of the Rationalist Church Sect hehehehe...

Lol ?

[abrakamowse]

@Faceless hahaha

[sarapr]

9 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@sarapr Because it’s not rational, and there’s no perceiver and nothing perceived. “It” appears that way. There’s a point where rationality ends in each of us, where there is nothing to rationalize. 

What would be beyond human perception? Maybe, there’s no such thing, to go beyond. ‘Human perception’ is it’s self beyond what Is already. 

And then it turns out, objective is true. 

What a reality.

But rationalists don't think of it that way.  They don't go full circle. If they're ratinoal, they should get it .

3 minutes ago, Outer said:

Talking about any group without their presence is the perfect circle jerk. It also leads to straw men and red herrings.

But maybe someone here is in that group or has some sort of experience with it 

[Nahm]

@sarapr That’s thinking. They think they’re rational. They’re taking it for granted without inquiring. Rationalists are not actually rational - beyond the application of thinking in duality. Nobody goes full circle. Just you❣️

[Faceless]

9 minutes ago, Outer said:

Talking about any group without their presence is the perfect circle jerk. It also leads to straw men and red herrings.

Considering yourself part of a particular group is a circle jerk. You know what I mean?

It’s a limiting yourself to your own particular bias and prejudices. If you understand the nature of ego/center this becomes quite obvious. 

I think what we as people need is a capacity to suspend our own points of view so we can inquire as objectively as possible. Only then can there be a genuine learning and order of thinking. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Faceless

[abrakamowse]

26 minutes ago, sarapr said:

But rationalists don't think of it that way.  They don't go full circle. If they're ratinoal, they should get it .

They "think" they are "rational". They go to certain point and they stop, they don't go beyond concepts and thoughts.

Because they think that they are separate entities who "think", that the thoughts are "their thoughts". They have attachment to ideas, and anything that is outside their "rational" thinking can't be explained, so they will never go beyond that.

Edited April 18, 2018 by abrakamowse

[Faceless]

35 minutes ago, Outer said:

It's not.

 

?

I see how you might not think it is,but if you examine deeper you may see what I mean. 

You can’t find out something new if you cling to that which is old. This is classic form of resistance. If you can’t suspend your own point of view you are not learning you are protecting a certain standpoint. So a good thing to do is inquire why/what am i protecting. 

This would be a start and indicator of how disorderly thought can be when it’s nature is not investigated. If you are not aware of the bias/prejudices nature of thinking from the center you will never be actully rational. Rational thought does not take a side. Rational thought suspends itself to investigate with order. A Rational thinker is aware of thoughts fragmented nature. This is or should be a common sense. If people want to use thought they might want to understand what they are using. 

Check it out man?

Edited April 18, 2018 by Faceless

[Akim]

I can try to answer from their side.

What is the point of using words if they don't grab on something stable, some persistent pattern and can't be verified by other people I communicate with? There is a consistent vocabulary, way to live and view the world that was refined by many many people. Why rationalist should stop listening to scientists who have a consistent narrative and can demonstrate the result of their work in experiments and working technology? Why should they listen to some guys saying truisms that feel good?

[Faceless]

Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls it. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. 

David Bohm

 

If thought runs you how can it be rational, logical, and reasonable? 

 

[abrakamowse]

The guys who worked on Quantum physics are more rationalist than the so called "rationalists", like Niels Bohr.

Quote

 

We must be clear that when it comes to atoms, language can be used only as in poetry. The poet, too, is not nearly so concerned with describing facts as with creating images and establishing mental connections.

Niels Bohr

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by abrakamowse

[Truth Addict]

1 hour ago, sarapr said:

To me it makes perfect sense that no matter how consistent reality is or how objective it may seem, humans can never go beyond their own perceptions of reality. what ever they do, they're doing it within their own understanding of reality, even if their math works in real life, it is still happening within humans perceptions of reality. The science and its manifestation in reality are all happing in the mind so by defenition it makes them subjective and to think that the reality is objectively happing outside of their perception is to take a leap of faith cause there exists no way to know that for sure.

why don't rationalists understand this ? Like really, what causes this to happen? Or is it that I am wrong

Because it works! And who cares about the Truth?!

The point is, they have a portion of reality, they gave up the rest and took it for granted. They don't inquire their perception nor beyond.

So, really what is the case? I don't know, maybe both, maybe none, maybe both and none altogether.

[InfinitePotential]

Dogma, conditioning, fear of the unknown, closed mindedness, unwillingness to introspect (not to bad mouth them). 

Additionaly, rational thought is extremely powerful and useful, so it's easy to think that it is the ultimate answer to all our questions. 

But taken to its extreme, (like in Gödel's incompleteness theorem), rationalism can be shown to be limited, and to be incapable of fully encapsulating Truth. 

And the way I see it, there is simply no way to rationally explain that there is anything at all (or that I'm "me" rather than someone / something else). How could you explain it? "Oh there's something because there can't be nothing". Why not? Who says so?

[Akim]

2 minutes ago, Faceless said:

Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls it. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us. 

David Bohm

 

If thought runs you how can it be rational, logical, and reasonable? 

 

I don't follow, why thought can't be rational, logical and reasonable even if it runs me? Those are words that describe qualities of good thoughts.

[Faceless]

2 minutes ago, Akim said:

I don't follow, why thought can't be rational, logical and reasonable even if it runs me? Those are words that describe qualities of good thoughts.

??

Have you investigates the nature/processes of thought? 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Faceless

[Akim]

Just now, Faceless said:

??

Have you investigates the nature of thought? 

I tried, as far as I can understand they are experiences extracting patterns from other experiences, symbolizing and simplifying them.

[Faceless]

5 minutes ago, InfinitePotential said:

Dogma, conditioning, fear of the unknown, closed mindedness, unwillingness to introspect (not to bad mouth them). 

Additionaly, rational thought is extremely powerful and useful, so it's easy to think that it is the ultimate answer to all our questions. 

But taken to its extreme, (like in Gödel's incompleteness theorem), rationalism can be shown to be limited, and to be incapable of fully encapsulating Truth. 

And the way I see it, there is simply no way to rationally explain that there is anything at all (or that I'm "me" rather than someone / something else). How could you explain it? "Oh there's something because there can't be nothing". Why not? Who says so?

Yeah understanding/comprehending the limits of thought is a necessity. Thought is limited, finite, fragmented. This needs to be understood. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Faceless

[abrakamowse]

I am fascinated with Niels Bohr, a scientist saying things like that. Of course, now they are disregarded by the science community because it was a long time ago, for sure...

Quote

 

I feel very much like Dirac: the idea of a personal God is foreign to me. But we ought to remember that religion uses language in quite a different way from science. The language of religion is more closely related to the language of poetry than to the language of science. True, we are inclined to think that science deals with information about objective facts, and poetry with subjective feelings. Hence we conclude that if religion does indeed deal with objective truths, it ought to adopt the same criteria of truth as science. But I myself find the division of the world into an objective and a subjective side much too arbitrary. The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far.

Niels Bohr

 

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by abrakamowse