Our eyes Deceive us of the truth of reality

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Adder, the English language (or any language for that matter) is not an industry and all science does is describe the phenomena behind those language definitions. So they are not really open to interpretation.

I'd disagree. It's why dictionaries have more then one definition of a word, usually a numbered list of several. A language is not written from high, it is collected and grown by its application, it is 'living' in that it changes. Those particular definitions you bought up, which are generally sourced from the music industry if I had to guess, are not universal and for example in electronics noise is defined as the irregular fluctuations, or disorganized or unwanted signals depending on the applications. Yes that is 'harmful' in the context of signal strength, but I find putting things into biological terms at that level unnecessary. The standard definition you used asserts subjective as a grey area open to ambiguity, most often interpreted by the shared experience of 'listening', while my definition just states it in terms of 'state' of processing/contextualization.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: But what I think you are trying to convey is our subjective experience of those definitions and subsequent descriptions. Meaning if you and I are in the forest and hear a tree fall, I might experience that as one of the most beautiful sounds ever while you might experience it as one of the most horrendously noisy crashes ever. Does that sort of describe what your trying to say?

It's not what I said no. I was providing a slightly different interpretation of the words sound and noise which, IMO, fit the broader interaction with the phenomena better then the standard definitions, with a measure of explanation. Further, why, because at that level of ''identification' of a phenomena within some context I find it better allows association of relationship by also identifying which ones are asserting meaning, rather then jumping straight to meaning. The type of meaning can be elucidated using other language and is not needed at that level, as IMO it makes processing faster by stripping unneeded details 'at that stage' of conceptual mapping.

Hmmm. Very interesting. Well, I have never seen a million dollars but I know it exists. I see more colors than my dog but a butterfly sees more colors than I do. I think it is wise to keep in mind that just because we can not detect something with our five senses, it doesn't mean it's not there. And on the other side, just because we observe something by way of our senses does not mean it is correct. If two people witness an event, it is very likely they will have two very different takes on the situation.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Jaedon wrote: Get rid of faith? Don't you have faith in the Force?

Faith is unjustified belief and therefore not a reliable path to knowledge so no, I don’t have faith in “The Force”, especially since I’m not sure what you mean by “The Force”?

Faith isn't separate from knowledge. It comes from the purest form of Knowledge. Gnosis, the experiencing of something. Not just thinking, but feeling. Like it's said, "the evidence of things unseen". That's why people cling to it. Whether or not they truly UNDERSTAND what it is they're feeling..

We don't yet fully understand what The Force is.. However, if you've felt it, experienced its influence. You know it exists. Even if it isn't apparent to everyone, or you don't understand its nature.

Adder, so I hope I’m getting closer to understanding what it is your tying to convey. What I think your trying to get at is the idea that the definition of a word must also be applied to the context in which the definition is being used. For example if we take the word Theory, when used in a layman’s context it means conjecture or a guess but if that same term, theory, is used in a scientific context it becomes something completely different – In fact it is the height of a collection of proven knowledge. And both of these seemingly contradictory definitions exist for the term Theory in a dictionary as well. When read from a dictionary they seem paradoxical but when applied to a context, either term becomes respectively applicable.

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Faith isn't separate from knowledge. It comes from the purest form of Knowledge. Gnosis, the experiencing of something. Not just thinking, but feeling. Like it's said, "the evidence of things unseen". That's why people cling to it. Whether or not they truly UNDERSTAND what it is they're feeling..

Sure people experience things they can’t explain all the time. But the problem lies in interpreting that experience as knowledge. How do you know your interpretation of that experience is actually valid knowledge? If you’re right, how do you prove it? What if you’re wrong, how do you know? If you don’t understand what it is your feeling how can you evaluate it accurately or even make a valid determination as to what is causing the feeling?

If Gnosis is actually providing the purest form of actual knowledge why are the Irish Catholics and Protestants killing each other? Why is Islam at war with the Jews and the Christians? Why are we not all mormons? Joseph Smith claimed direct knowledge of things unseen through visits from God the Father, Jesus Christ, and many angels. So who is right? How do we determine which knowledge we perceive we have derived from these experiences is accurate and which is not? If we can reject claims others in their assertions of having spiritual knowledge how do we know ours is valid?

Seems to me if we can’t objectively determine which is actual knowledge and which is not, then that is not knowledge at all but simply our subjective imaginations trying to erroneously quantify something we have no understanding of. Isn’t it better to just say we don’t know what that was than to try to make something up and claim its knowledge?

I thought this might help:

Fa-yen,a Chinese Zen teacher, overheard four monks arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider if to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Fa-yen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

Streen wrote: I thought this might help:

Fa-yen,a Chinese Zen teacher, overheard four monks arguing about subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: "There is a big stone. Do you consider if to be inside or outside your mind?"

One of the monks replied: "From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an objectification of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind."

"Your head must feel very heavy," observed Fa-yen, "if you are carrying around a stone like that in your mind."

But what does he mean!? I'm thinking that last line in the quote is meant to be a question, not a statement, as part of a dialectic to probe the persons understanding of Buddhism.

Lol if you look at it. Buddha, Yeshua, we're the ones who had a "Personal Experience" a knowing, and purposefully sought to understand it. They didn't just take whatever box society gave them. Like the Catholics and Protestants.

Kinda of reminds me of a scripture I like..

"Let him who seeks continue [seeking until] he finds. When he finds, [he will be amazed. And] when he becomes [amazed], he will rule. And [once he has ruled], he will [attain rest]."

Jaedon Adar-Barnaby wrote: Lol if you look at it. Buddha, Yeshua, we're the ones who had a "Personal Experience" a knowing, and purposefully sought to understand it. They didn't just take whatever box society gave them. Like the Catholics and Protestants.

Here is the crux of the issue right here. You have judged another without reason and made a determination that you are correct and they are not. How do you know they have not had just as personal an experience with the divine as you claim to have had? What makes you right and them wrong in the validity of their experience?

I think you should ask yourself the same thing Kyrin honestly. This whole thread was meant to dive deep into spirituality and I feel like it turned into a science debate between you and Adder on who was right and who was wrong in all fairness.

As Joel Osteen has quoted, "Your entitled to your opinion and I have a right not to listen."

lol