Why don't rationalists accept the subjective reality

[Arman]

As strange as it sounds, I think below a certain threshold of consciousness the individual doesn't have the capacity to make this leap. Almost like two different kinds of animals. There is a certain level of abstract meta awareness that the brain doesn't allow until a peculiar shift is made in the consciousness and allows for a whole different kind of processing. Before that it's like on a physiological level the brain and ego complex is focused so acutely on self preservation at the cost of the ability to process otherness. 

[Faceless]

11 minutes ago, Arman said:

There is a certain level of abstract meta awareness that the brain doesn't allow until a peculiar shift is made in the consciousness and allows for a whole different kind of processing.

Yes?

It’s going from a fragmented/partial form of processing to a holistic non fragmentary/impartial form of processing. 

 

[sarapr]

I guess being old also plays a role for not wanting to accept you're wrong cause Stefan Molyneux in the video said I didn't do all these years of study to now say I'm not absolutely sure if I'm right. So it clearly depicts a sense of stubbornness in his views 

[Leo Gura]

Rationality gives people a false sense of security, just like religion. It allows one to anchor oneself in an otherwise unanchorable reality.

Linear rationality is just the default way the human mind works unless one goes to great lengths to experience higher levels of consciousness.

[abrakamowse]

4 hours ago, sarapr said:

@abrakamowse I keep reading your username "Abra kedabra"  why do you do that to me !?

Lol!!!!

It's a mix with Abracadaniel (my real name is Daniel) from Adventure Time and mouse because of the book "who moved my cheese". I always talked about that book and someone said I should be a mouse, then someone wrote my nick name in a chat mowse, and finally I changed the k instead the c and that's the story Lol...

You can call me Daniel hehehehe...

Edited April 18, 2018 by abrakamowse

[abrakamowse]

4 hours ago, Faceless said:

By the way how old is your daughter? 

She is 11, and now I think influenced for the guys that do Aikido is reading the Dhammapada hehehe... she wrote something about it, I will post it later.

[Faceless]

Lolol 

When your identified with a group ‘partial point of view’ you can never see all the variables of the whole. Because you have given up the freedom to investigate objectively into any progression of possibility. You have become an ‘individual’ or group that enters discussion/debates with no intention of suspending their own bias/prejudice point of view to come to an agreement of consensus. You have basically entered into communication without the intention of gaining any type of insight or valued information in order to come to a reasonable conclusion or ‘communion.’ You have made your mind up before you even enter the discussion. 

Now my point is does this seem rational at all? To call yourself a rationalist in itself implies irrationality. 

You say that is not a form of circle jerk and karma whoreing...

Have you ever wondered why people/groups do that???

If you know the answer to that you will see what I mean. 

My intension is to show that identifying as a rationalist is irrational. As identification with an idea, belief, opinion distorts and corrupts the quality of thought that is utilaized as the means of any particular discussion. Therfore the discussion is tainted from the beginning. 

This is an example of the disorderly nature of thought that has been reduced by fragmentation. Only awarness of this and action followed by that awareness/attention would their imply that thought was actually moving in the direction of rationality.

I’m sure this is pretty easy to understand right??

Edited April 19, 2018 by Faceless

[abrakamowse]

Quote

 

Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.

Max Planck

 

 

[Faceless]

The part cannot contain the whole. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Faceless

[Faceless]

@abrakamowse 

yep ??

[sarapr]

16 hours ago, abrakamowse said:

Lol!!!!

It's a mix with Abracadaniel (my real name is Daniel) from Adventure Time and mouse because of the book "who moved my cheese". I always talked about that book and someone said I should be a mouse, then someone wrote my nick name in a chat mowse, and finally I changed the k instead the c and that's the story Lol...

You can call me Daniel hehehehe...

Such a complex reasoning behind choosing a username  and then I come reading it, throwing it all away 

[Faceless]

@sarapr Aba kedabra lol 

[abrakamowse]

19 minutes ago, Faceless said:

@sarapr Aba kedabra lol 

Lol ! 

Abba father!

[Joseph Maynor]

Quine said that it's a pragmatic assumption he makes in order to preserve the causal system which makes Science possible.  It's not that he denies subjective reality, he just takes a skeptical view of all stories about the mental.  There's a lot of bullshit in our theories of the subjective.  A lot of Philosophers remain touch and go regarding such theories.  It's not that they deny the subjective -- they are just tentative with stories about it.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Joseph Maynor