Posted on 09/23/2016 8:16:02 AM PDT by Be Careful
About a year ago I told you that Donald Trump would change far more than politics. I predicted that he would change your understanding of the human condition and your role in reality.
Back then, I couldn’t explain what I meant. You didn’t have the mental framework to hold this new idea – unless you were a trained hypnotist or a cognitive scientist. The ideas were too radical.
Until now.
I saw this situation developing last year. The Master Persuader opened a crack in the universe so we mortals could – for the first time – understand the nature of reality. At the end of this short blog post I will link to an article that will blow your mind.
But first I will describe the mental framework you need to accept this new vision of reality. The framework goes like this:
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.dilbert.com ...
Oh come on man, post the whole thing.
Yesterdays blog post is much better.
It is worth the click through, there are a whole series of interesting articles.
Nah, Adams should get the hits. He's earned them.
Let me assure you that philosophical arguments about objective and subjective perceptions of reality are fine and dandy but I still have a day ahead of me that involves diapers, cooking, and laundry.
Perhaps Scott Adams envisions himself as Morpheus as he enlightens us proles on the nature of “reality”?
I clicked, I read, and thought it was stupid. But, to each his own.
Just reason them away
My iPad browser actually held up for both articles for a change.
I think the second author (describing the work of a third) is sniffing down the trail of something. I am no physicist but I suspect we are literally on the verge of earthshaking discoveries in the field. As I understand it the math “that fits” indicates there are, in reality ( oh, that word) 11 dimensions. Our perceptions are limited to three. I do believe the third author is trying to extend this concept into cognitive science. Maybe it is just me but it seems premature to try to investigate this until we have a better handle on “WTF seven other dimensions”. I suppose it never hurts to get started but extending any reasoning into our experience is pretty risky. We all remember Phlogistan and Ether.
He makes a claim that people irrationally come to a conclusion then “cherry pick” data to bolster it.
Having thrown away the basis to believe in anything, he rushes right on as though he hadn’t done it.
That’s known as having your philosophical cake and throwing it in the garbage too, or something like that.
Just reason them away
“Humans decide first, then rationalize their irrational choices with cherry-picked data.”
It is nearly impossible to reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. Religion is similar. Very few minds are changed by comments in forums.
I believe that old fashioned thing — the grace of God — is looming close to a spiritual rediscovery.
Sometimes this happens right after people have messed up their nests really terribly. What you might think would send the Celestial Master packing in disgust or draw utter destructive wrath, often finds a very measured response instead.
I embrace faith quite forthrightly. Any God worth His loving worship is going to make an excellent case for Himself, yet will never bowl over the utterly unwilling.
Phlogistan
And I was being facetious about reasoning away the cooking, cleaning, etc.
We do these things, or ought to, because of the love of God.
Adams is an interesting character, which I much appreciate.
I have ordered his book.
Sort of a pointless exercise. I like Adams most of the time, but his link provides no intellectual nourishment. The author believes he’s unique, and can see a reality that no one else has perceived. An interesting delusion, but not that uncommon. Maybe he actually thinks writing this article will get him laid.. Then it all makes sense.
“Let me assure you that philosophical arguments about objective and subjective perceptions of reality are fine and dandy but I still have a day ahead of me that involves diapers, cooking, and laundry.”
Why? ;-)
Phlogiston was a substance hypothesized to embody heat energy.
It was not an unreasonable hypothesis; it stood until people found seemingly more precise explanations. But we still don’t really UNDERSTAND energy, we only have sets of equations to explain how it behaves. For all we know we could be all soaked with “phlogiston” but we’d never know it from experiments because it doesn’t act like anything we know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.