Can information be inherently deceitful? If it can then we must actively be on guard to protect ourselves from natural lies. If it cannot then humans are the source and cause of misunderstandings, falsehoods, and intentional altering of truth.

 “One man’s trash is another man’s treasures.” “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.”"Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." This would also mean that un-beauty or ugliness does not exist naturally. Whatever exists to be simply is. It is not until a self-aware organism can reflect upon them do they become anything else but themselves. The old question about a tree falling in the woods with no person around to hear it and then asking if it makes a sound seems to be backwards. The question is ego-centric because it means to say that reality is absent without an observer, but the reality seems just the opposite.

An observer mutates or morphs reality into other things than the thing is. Sounds, being vibrations in air molecules, are interpreted by different minds to mean or be different things. Sometimes those things are what the sound really is and sometimes those things are grossly distorted from their original source. While it is understandable to think that beauty exists for the sake of an observer, it does not reflect well with what really is. We look like the only possible observers in existence. Could it be any different?

Is there a difference between an ant’s perception of a raindrop and a human’s? Is the raindrop itself any different because the observer is different? It does not appear that way. A raindrop is a raindrop is a raindrop. We may give additional meaning to a raindrop but it does not change the reality of the raindrop’s existence. If we possess any advantage over the ant, the fish, the bird, or fellow primate, it is to store information outside of our inherited genetics. This is also our biggest disadvantage as anything a human can think of or do can be stored.

Is racism what causes an ape to kill another primate it has never encountered before? Is a particular regional belief responsible for a raccoon not sharing its abundant food supply? It seems quite clear that we humans are the best and worst that life on earth has at its disposal. We should not become overly anxious at this dilemma, however, for any creature to possess the abundance of external genetic information that we do will likely find itself in the same dilemmas we are currently challenged with.

How do we sail closer to the horizon of hope while avoiding the pitfalls of persecution? It is not an easy journey by any stretch of the imagination, but it is one we must take. Indeed it is one we are all already on. Many of us see ships lost at sea while their sailors see quite the opposite. We cannot all be sailing to improved horizons but we can all be sailing away from them.

How do we sailors of salvation, each with our own version of what really is, steer each other to better courses of compassion and mutual understanding? The moment we name our course, our ship, our reasons for sailing in the first place, is the moment others begin to assess, judge, criticize, and reject. For some, the prejudgment comes the moment the colors of the sailing ship’s flag are visible.

What can we do to ensure better opportunities for sharing our voyages without crashing into one another or forever sailing away from each other? Or does our own tribal survival depend so heavily on quickly perceiving an enemy vessel, real or imagined? A false positive is commonly preferred to a false negative, especially in terms of an ignored threat to life, but what of the others? Are there ways to bypass instinctual survival skills so an opportunity of better understanding is not lost?

For now let us ask which is more reliable-Our instincts or those other things not found in our shared genetic code? 

Views: 194

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by AtheistTech on May 14, 2012 at 12:33pm

@ Vasan - You seem to have beliefs that are from the lack of understanding science. Would you mind if I commented critically on your last post?

Comment by Vasanth Ra on May 14, 2012 at 11:13am

 

I am extremely curious though how we circumnavigate barriers of deceiving perception to better understand what the Cosmos is even we were are not looking.

 

   Perception is not deception, rather it is projection of  human limitation in the quest to understand nature.This is what we can do afterall,perceive something,find fault in it and with correction raise the standard of our perception.Since we a part of evolution,considering the limitations of human senses and the shortcomings of our reasonings,this is the only path we can follow.

   But there may be a theoritical solution at sight close to your curiosity.A team of physicists led by Stephen Hawking are on the quest to find the 'Holy grail' of physics which is known as 'The grand unification theory' or in lay man terms it is also known as 'The theory of everything'.

By discovering this,Stephen Hawking claims that we can 'know the mind of god'.This theory is basically a unified theory formed by combining all the laws.But the plausibility of such a theory is uncertain.

  

  

 

Comment by AtheistTech on May 13, 2012 at 2:48pm

@ R.Vasanthan - You said:

Nature doesn't lie,rather it forces us to perceive it in the way it wants us to perceive it so that we may marvel at it's beauty for eternity.

Nature, I believe, does not "want" anything. We may want nature to want like us, but I don't think nature has a mind to want. I hope I didn't step on a poet's creation. Have a nice day!


Comment by It's just Matt on May 13, 2012 at 2:18pm

Thanks for the input. I over-complicate things sometimes, my bad.

 

I guess each thing will find itself being defined by observer. Whatever is useful and makes accurate predictions is what I think it mostly comes down to.

I am extremely curious though how we circumnavigate barriers of deceiving perception to better understand what the Cosmos is even we were are not looking.

 

In most cases, people judge my statements based on their pre-cursors. To a religious person, an agnostic is not as threating as an atheist. They will listen more openly to an agnostic than an atheist making the same statement.

Likewise, I have to challenge myself to listen carefully to a devout fundamentalist compared to an open spiritualist making the same claim.

 

I think I realize that is why we have the scientific method and we are suppose to investigate the claim regardless of origins, but we fall short far too often.

After all it took a magician to show scientists how people are not super-naturalists just charlatans. 

Comment by Vasanth Ra on May 13, 2012 at 9:19am

   The world is how we perceive it.There is no absolute world out there or atleast there is no way we can find it out.A raindrop is a raindrop is a raindrop.But what a raindrop is to you may not be to something else.There is no absolute frame of reference to see exactly what is a raindrop.As for now the safest bet is that everything is energy.

   Nature doesn't lie,rather it forces us to perceive it in the way it wants us to perceive it so that we may marvel at it's beauty for eternity.That is why any human proposal remains incomplete and for that reason science always gets closer to the truth but never exactly reaches there.

   As far as human beings are concerned,we can never all agree to a point at the same time.The fallacy of reasoning plays it's part here.Reasoning is based on experience(and maybe also on genes) which defer from person to person.So it takes some sort of common understanding to agree on an issue with a majority.Like mind converge,unlike diverge.

   With somewhat at the same level of view Albert Einstein asked his fellow physicsts,"Is the moon still there when you are not looking at it?".

  

                              

Comment by AtheistTech on May 13, 2012 at 5:17am

Word games is the source and cause of misunderstandings, falsehoods, and intentional altering of truth. If you are interested, read my blog: http://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/blogs/religion-s-word-games

I'm just a crazy man spreading natural lies.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service