What Would Cause You to Stop and Listen?

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Great, OP.

I have only one question:

How can I access/experience the truth?

______________________

See where I am coming from? There is no ONE truth - there is just what we experience.

If this is true, then what allows you to exist? What causes your own body's atoms to remain faithful to you as you get up from a comfortable chair? Imagine losing you *ss to the warm seat of a chair as your molecules decide they they aren't going anywhere. So, if there's no Truth, then what forces those atoms to remain as part of your *ss?

Especially those atoms. Seriously.

Regardless - I am sticking to my question. Then I would tell you, because, he would tell me how to find out for yourself. Then we all would know, because we all would be able to experience.

That's one question, but if he's got any savvy whatsoever, his answer would probably seem credible enough. Considering the subject at hand, of course. Not easy to trip up a reasonably proficient huckster with such an open ended question.

Lol. Ain't been sucked in yet. If it was so easy to get past that question, you'd think somebody'd done it by now.

Of course, you're assuming that the Truth is already covered within one of the Abrahamic religions.

No, I wasn't making that assumption. I was giving a "worked example," how the questioning might go with Mohammed. He had already come up as someone successful who didn't take the "miracle worker" approach mentioned in the OP. So, for the example, I just stayed with him.

Had Mohammed made it past the "How do you know?" question, his remaining problem (for me) would be that he is telling me that the Truth lies somewhere that I personally am already familiar with. I don't rule out somebody someday telling me that I overlooked something there, but Mohammed's recitations' differences from the canonical Bible don't persuade me that they point in any promising direction I have overlooked.

Why must it come down to religious or theological questions?

It doesn't necessarily. All examples have their limitations, and Mohammed as an example has the limitation that our discussion would probably involve religious and theological questions. I'd be delighted to sit down with Gautama (also a non-"miracle worker"), and then the discussion wouldn't be theological, or even necessarily all that religious.

As to the rest, I am not so sure as you seem to be that math is far away from something essential about capital-T Truth. In any case, I was saying that I wouldn't ask the prime pair question, unless that came up during the part of the conversation that I can't generalize about in advance, because what I would ask depends on the specifics of what the prophet tells me.

reply to post by FIFIGI

I told him he wouldn't recognize it unless it came up and bit him on the a$$, so at least he's trying I suppose, although why he's obsessing about physics I can't understand.. unless he thinks it must be founded only within a materialist monist (matter alone is primary) frame of reference, something already proven to be untrue. Seems to me these atheists always begin with one and only one, presupposition, which is already the wrong frame of reference for approaching this question.

reply to post by NorEaster


I would ask him nothing about himself. Rather, I would ask him question about me. This person (supposedly) has infinite knowledge. Nothing escapes his wisdom, correct? Then for me to be completely satisfied, I would ask him the following questions:

1. What is my name?
2. When and where was I born
3. What is my deepest desire?
4. What is my greatest regret?
5. What things, in life, am I most passionate about?

And I would be looking for specifics. Nothing vauge or obscure. Not one sentance answers, either. The above are all things that I have come to answer, personally, through many long introspective hours. And many of the answers were not easy to come to, either. The name and place of birth are, in the spectrum, easy to answer. All that information is on record somewehre, and this person could have concievably gained previous knowledge of that.

The last thee, however, are not things that I generally discuss (and I think this would be true for most people). Secifically if he could accuratley tell me what my deepest desire and greatest fear were, then I would have to take him at his word. This information is not readily available on some computer screen (that I know of, anyway), and those answers are known by only one person of the seven billion on this planet, and that is me. Intimite knowledge of such subjcts would leave almost no trace of doubt in my mind.


GtkP

This would be my challenge to a person making such claims:

1) Why do you believe that you know the ultimate truth/have these professed abilities/are who you say you are? That is, what have you personally done, experienced, learned, seen, or caused to happen that leads you to believe this?

(If he/she/it answers by claiming to have special knowledge, abilities, experiences, etc. then I would ask them to prove it in question #2. If they say they can't tell me, or that they "just know," or that it is not for me to question, then I accept the possibility that they are telling the truth, but remain skeptical and will not accept their claims as definitive truth without further personal investigation of my own.)

2) Show me tangible, demonstrable evidence of your answer to the previous question.

(If their evidence is tangible, compelling, remarkable, and reproducible, then I would move on to question #3. If it is not, or seems to exist only in their own mind, incapable of being taught to, proved to, or experienced by another - such as myself - then, again, I accept the possibility that what they are saying is the truth, but remain skeptical and will not accept their claims and definitive proof without further personal investigation of my own.)

3) Allow myself, and others with greater knowledge and experience than me in whatever fields, ways, philosophies, or mentalities are applicable to your claims, to examine and critically ponder/attempt to challenge your evidence, and to vet it. During this process, it is likely that alternative possible explanations for your claims will be raised. Can you rule out all possible alternative explanations for your evidence?

(If myself and everyone else who examines and tries to challenge their evidence can find no possible alternative explanations - including advanced technology that may exist but that we may be ignorant to or even incapable of conceiving of, which is a very broad, and possibly infinite range of possibilities, mind you - and there is no evidence of duplicity or deception, then I would ask him the next question.

If alternative possibilities remain - which there may always be - then I would once again be open to the possibility that what they are saying is the truth, but would not fully embrace it as the truth, remaining skeptical. However, if those possibilities seem less probable at this point than what they are claiming, or are incredible improbable seeming in their own right, which is possible, then at this point I would potentially be leaning toward the probability that they might be telling the truth, at least in as much as we can say that "the sky is blue" is probably a true statement. Although, I should note that I'm even skeptical of that statement, since color is an abstraction of our brain's interpretation of the information gleaned by the cells in our eyes interacting with specific wavelengths of light; not the wavelengths of light/information itself. We can't "see" information or wavelengths - what would that look like? - so we see an abstraction of it. Yet the "thing" itself that we call "blue" - that is to say, the specific, aesthetic, visual experience of seeing the "thing" called "blue," is an abstraction, and not an inherent, literal reality in my opinion... which could be incorrect.)

4) Thus far you appear to be truthful and have provided strong evidence of your claims which has been successfully vetted and found to be credible. How do you contrast your truth with the empirical truths as accepted by science prior to the revelations you are bringing to the table? That is to say, how do you explain any inconsistencies between what you are saying and our current peer reviewed, scientifically vetted knowledge of reality as we know it, and how does what you are here to tell us expand upon, clarify, reconcile, and complete that knowledge beyond what we already know or believe to be the case? Essentially, examine and correct our myriad scientific theorems so that they are complete and can accurately predict and describe reality 100% of the time.

(If they cannot do this, then I would again remain skeptical, while being open to the possibility that they are correct/truthful. If they can do it, or if they can demonstrate to our greatest minds and theoretical physicists and cosmologists that our theories are completely wrong and replace them fully with new, fully working models, that leave no remaining questions or problems, then I would be very compelled to accept that they are almost certainly telling the truth/accurate.)

Those would be my challenges to their claims, and I could not carry them out alone by any stretch of the imagination, because I am a layperson.

reply to post by NorEaster


Great thread!
It’s hard for me to be 100% certain about most things, particularly those philosophical in nature...but I’d be compelled to believe someone’s concept of the “ultimate truth” if he/her she could:

1. Perhaps tell me something about myself that only I would know.

2. Give me the ability to see, even if only temporarily, how he/she perceives the world. So I could possibly come to the same conclusions he/she did. (see the inner workings of the cosmos ect.)

3.Direct new discoveries into our ancient history. And explain with moving images exactly how the Great Pyramids were formed!

4. Explain complex social interactions convincingly and with really good examples.

5. Possibly make some obscure though easily verified future predictions

reply to post by NorEaster


I stopped, And I am listening. I also know the answers, But so does everyone. Each person has there own truth of reality, This is why no one will listen. Although I like to listen to others thoughts, And I guess that is what counts more, So I can expand my own truths, by listening to others that make sense to me. S&F

EDIT: I will ask only one question. This question has multiple answers but only one is correct.
There is one thing that every person CAN DO, In order to make this world a better place, if not perfect. What would it be?

reply to post by NorEaster

1. What forms the basis of all immutable laws of physical structure?

Energy exchange, and the perception of that exchange.

2. How is this consistency imposed?

Generally speaking it is not "imposed." However, there may occassionally be limits to the ability of any particular observer to choose the nature of their observations. As such, consistency may be "imposed" by one's limits.

3. Why - if true chaos is impossible, given the clear existence of pervasive order - are there instances of seeming chaos and brief inconsistencies that have been perceived?

Why do you assume chaos is impossible when you are apparently able to observe instances of it? One would not suggest that stars are impossible, nor view them as "inconsistencies" simply because they're so scarce relative to the vastness of space between them. Why suggest chaos is impossible simply because it is similarly rare?

4. What is the logical nature of a true anomaly?

It is a question of perception. From the peception of a spaceborne microbe, water might be considered anomalous. From the perspective of a dolphin, water is completely normal.

5. What is the primary impetus for the existence of physical order?

Any given set of rules lends itself to a given set of likely results. If you drop a ball while standing on earth, it is likely to fall. If somebody else drops something that is not a ball while standing on a different planet, it is also likely to fall. Different people, different objects, different planets, yet the result was similar. You can describe this similarity as "order" but in both cases it is simply a likely result of the same rules being applied. In this case, gravity. Your observed universe exhibits a more or less consistent set of rules. Therefore, within that universe, similar, "ordered" results are likely to result.


I have answered your questions. By what means do you evaluate the responses?

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Firewater
1 - What religious affiliation do you claim?

2 - What is your definition of the word "TRUTH"?

3 - How can you be certain that these "TRUTH"s, are indeed 100% fact? Or, are you?

4 - Why are you telling me? Right here? Right now?

5 - Tell me of your own aspirations, or plans, for the remainder of this lifetime.

Not even 24 hours of interogation could achieve an absolute certainty on the validity, or non-validity, of his claims. As they say, nothing in Life is certain but Death and taxes. But, his answers to these questions, and how he answered them, would be an extremely beneficial gauge.

These questions don't challenge the Truth that he claims to possess. Only his Truth can be seen as objective and testable. The man himself is just a man. He's got (essentially) a package, and his claim is that this package contains the Truth. Look at the package, and tell me how you authenticate it or debunk it.

edit on 1/5/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

My 5 questions are aimed at authenticating or debunking his story before he even pulls out his "package". They are questions in which, (a) if he is legit, would garner a very specific type of answer or (b) if hes a fraud, would be very difficult to come up with a good BS answer on the fly. 1 - I would suspect one whom knows the "truth" would claim no religious affiliation and may even become offended by this question. 2 - The word "truth" would be difficult to accurately define by someone who practices anything other than; the "truth". 3 - He learned of these truths somehow and should be able to give a definitive confident answer, no matter how outrageous it may sound. 4 - similar to #3. And 5 - I'm confident that, if he is who he claims to be, the laws of Human Nature would insist on nothing less than a lifetime of devotion spent conveying these truths.
So rather than trying to determine the validity of some possibly well thought out, and practiced, answers, i would create a set of questions specifically aimed at forcing any un-truths to the surface and into the open.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by NorEaster
Having the Truth about reality is one thing. Having dominion over reality is quite a different thing.

...thats your opinion and your choice to arrogantly presume that "dominion over reality" has to be part of my hypothetical scenario...

...imo (in my opinion), anyone who claims they have THE TRUTH (about what we perceive as reality) must have (1) some control over reality - or - (2) the ability to initiate some control over reality - or - (3) the ability to influence reality... if they do not, they're selling bs and/or are psychotic...

So, which is it? Does your version of having the Truth involve having control over it or not? This response seems to assert both.

...if they are capable of any of the above, it does not mean they know the whole truth about everything to do with our perception of reality... they might or they might not... i think not is far more likely...

...apt examples are timothy leary and timothy mcveigh... both thought they knew "truth" and both changed many people's perception of reality via bs...

The effort is to craft a series of questions that will determine the initial indication of whether this guy is deluded or not. Simple premise.

Originally posted by NorEaster
This man hasn't claimed to be Jesus on a cloud come back for the 2nd act.

...perhaps you slung that erroneous presumption because you believe in the existence of deities and, therefore, anyone like the man in my scenario must be a god...

...the hypothetical man in my initial response could have been a man from another world, in another universe, that is intellectually far superior to us but, still, just a man - not a god...

In my presumption, the Jesus on a cloud is pretty much the same thing as some guy from another universe. I don't believe in a 2nd coming.

Originally posted by NorEaster
He's claimed to have the Truth concerning what we are, how we fit into reality, the nature of reality itself, and the truth about God as it relates to us. Where does this claim intersect with "the war machine"?

...what a shame that you have to ask...

I get the distinct impression that you're spoiling for a fight. I won't pay any more attention to your posts in this thread. Thanks for playing.

Originally posted by truetrigger
The truth is not factual........
I'm not saying that truth is not factual.... Far from it.....

It's just truth is subjective to one's own perspective..... Hence the saying there are 2 sides to every story.

There are many different " truths " depending on who is telling it and who is listening.
Then in between these truths lye's the facts......

" I'm telling the truth "
" I believe you "

As I said..... Facts need no belief.

If Truth is not factual, then it's not true. I won't debate the nature of truth, since this thread is not a debate about truth. Start a thread about the nature of truth if you want to debate this.

Originally posted by FIFIGI

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by FIFIGI
Great, OP.

I have only one question:

How can I access/experience the truth?

______________________

See where I am coming from? There is no ONE truth - there is just what we experience.

If this is true, then what allows you to exist? What causes your own body's atoms to remain faithful to you as you get up from a comfortable chair? Imagine losing you *ss to the warm seat of a chair as your molecules decide they they aren't going anywhere. So, if there's no Truth, then what forces those atoms to remain as part of your *ss?

Especially those atoms. Seriously.

Regardless - I am sticking to my question. Then I would tell you, because, he would tell me how to find out for yourself. Then we all would know, because we all would be able to experience.

You should have no trouble finding a man "with the Truth" then. Good for you.

reply to post by electricalpup


So then, you have no question? Okay.

Originally posted by GhostLancer
Question 1: Using your mind's eye, create the image of an imaginary key; what does it look like? And, if you were to see that key on the ground before you, what, if anything would you do?

Question 2: Again, using your mind's eye, create a body of water (can be *any* body of water or any size, but you must "create" a personal mental picture, not simply remember a real place); what does it look like? And, if you MUST cross that body of water, in what fashion would you do so?

Question 3: Using that same mind's eye (wipe the image of the water from your mind, this is a new image), picture some form of a barrier or wall before you; what does it look like? And, if you had to cross it, in what fashion would you do so? Finally, once you pass it, what do you see --using your mind's eye to create an image, --don't remember any real place.

Question 4: Who are you? Be complete.

Question 5: Why do you consider *your* Truth to be *The* Truth? Be complete.

Well, those are the first ones that come to mind anyway.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: I think Obi Wan Kenobi said it well in Episode 6: Return of the Jedi:
"The truths we cling to depend greatly upon our point of view." -or something to that effect.

edit on 5-1-2011 by GhostLancer because: Added the quote from Obi Wan Kenobi.

I can't even imagine what the correct answers to any of these questiuons would be. I would discern nothing at all about this man's Truth if he answered these questions. I was hoping for questions that would be useful regardless of the modern society person asking them.

Originally posted by time91
1. How do you know what you think you know?
2. How do you know you exist?
3. Does reality have a purpose, other than to exist?
4. Why are you imparting this perspective to me?
5. What is the nature of the first creator (god)?

"Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." -Marcus Aurelius

I like #3 and #5. Thanks.

Originally posted by ManInTheMirror
EDIT: I will ask only one question. This question has multiple answers but only one is correct.
There is one thing that every person CAN DO, In order to make this world a better place, if not perfect. What would it be?

I know the answer to this one.

Be the love that's missing in the world, at all levels of the human social grid, including own selves (we cannot love out of a lack of self love) and then, upon the rock of love or the rock of ages, beginning with our own family of origin to include, ultimately the whole of humanity within that family framework of the brotherhood and sistergood of mankind - create a clearing for everyone in the process, of new possibility, and hope for a better world. Self generated love, so great, that it is capable of carrying, like a camel carries water across the desert under a blaring sun, as much sorrow as is neccessary, to produce a smile through those beloved tears of compassion.

Do this, and then you shall be at cause as a force of human history in eternity, no matter how insignificant you may feel your sphere of influence, because there is no power or principality, which cannot be made to cave even under the weight of it's own hubris, relative to such a self reinforcing dynamic as that, beginning with you and me, right now.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NorEaster
I reject the lazy notion that reality can't be known, or that a person's head would explode if presented with the overview of how physical existence is laid out. That just sounds like the intellectual equivalent of cracking a beer and turning on the Cartoon Network.

Nice visual

I agree, and tend to dismiss anyone who makes the claim that what they know cannot be known by anyone until they have been similarly enlightened. It's a legitimate point, to a degree, but it implies that you have to waste a bunch of time before you can even begin to determine whether you're wasting your time or not. Knowledge of the esoteric isn't that important to me.

Your questions are fine, but you don't really have any way of testing the veracity of the answers, unless the truth is something reasonable. If it is unreasonable, you would find the answers unreasonable and dismiss them as a kook. Saying that you wouldn't dismiss it as unreasonable would be an indication that, if the truth was reasonable, but the person's answers were unreasonable, you would accept them, making the whole exercise pointless.

The testing of the answers would require examining the ramifications of those answers. Any answer concerning physical structure would have to be extremely simple, and (metaphorically speaking) feature no moving parts whatsoever. Otherwise, how could they reflect a foundational tenet of physical structure? Most people can't reduce their perspective to the point of conceiving the primordial, and their premises are loaded up with all kinds of complications. Yes, it would depend on his answers. Of course the whole effort would be affected by his answers. Still, the direct association between a plausible answer, and what can be determined via logical extrapolation, is not impossible to establish and verify.

The Truth could only be reasonable, and logically associated with what we know to be concrete and consistent. This requirement would be the primary tool that you'd use to verify this man's Truth. Truth is not free. It's extremely confined as a direct result of what it is.

The only way that it would work is for your series of questions to distill down into a question that you do know the answer to and can verify, but all other answers are beholding to. Not sure how that would work, and I can still see how it could be gamed.

The ultimate determination would certainly require a deeper analysis, but the initial triage effort would likely filter a significant number of wannabes out of the running for the next guy with the Truth. That'd be a good start anyway.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by FIFIGI

 

I told him he wouldn't recognize it unless it came up and bit him on the a$$, so at least he's trying I suppose, although why he's obsessing about physics I can't understand.. unless he thinks it must be founded only within a materialist monist (matter alone is primary) frame of reference, something already proven to be untrue. Seems to me these atheists always begin with one and only one, presupposition, which is already the wrong frame of reference for approaching this question.

I am a definite believer in a creator being that we can logically think of as the author of our existence in the macro sense, so I guess that makes me a theist. My reason for focusing on pre-physics is because physics is a science that can be used to (possibly) verify an answer that this man might provide. It would take linking that answer to a definable fact if physics through the application of logical extrapolation applied to the ramifications of that answer, but this seems to be the most likely possibility. Certainly focusing on the man's theological or philosophical views - while probably fascinating - wouldn't give you anything that could be seen as definitive.

Originally posted by Guido the Killer Pimp
reply to post by NorEaster

 

I would ask him nothing about himself. Rather, I would ask him question about me. This person (supposedly) has infinite knowledge. Nothing escapes his wisdom, correct? Then for me to be completely satisfied, I would ask him the following questions:

1. What is my name?
2. When and where was I born
3. What is my deepest desire?
4. What is my greatest regret?
5. What things, in life, am I most passionate about?

And I would be looking for specifics. Nothing vauge or obscure. Not one sentance answers, either. The above are all things that I have come to answer, personally, through many long introspective hours. And many of the answers were not easy to come to, either. The name and place of birth are, in the spectrum, easy to answer. All that information is on record somewehre, and this person could have concievably gained previous knowledge of that.

Read the opening question again. This man claims to have the Truth about physical reality, not infinite knowledge. I wouldn't assume that he knows anything about me. I'm not the nature of physical reality. I'm one very insignificant result of a very small pattern of activity within the whole of reality. Knowledge of my own personal minutia? Not likely part of this guy's package.

reply to post by NorEaster

I did offer the foundation, the mechanism of creation, it's control, motive, and desire or intent of the will, and MO, as well as an applicable test or hypothesis which can be easily understood and applied in full and in mutual understanding and appreciation. Furthermore, the scientific framework I offer, has been coined "Monistic Idealism" (consciosness not matter is primary) as opposed to the "Materialist Monist" pradigm or frame of reference (matter alone is primary). This may be validated relative to each of the quantum pardoxes, in particular Wheeler's delayed choice experiment, that is, only if consiousness itself (Monistic Idealism) may be considered primary, from only one frame of reference, in this case a single photon, non-locally distributed, interacting co-creatively with our free will, thus describing, in the foundational space of nothing, a boundless realm of limitless possibility in eternity, or an inclusion in an eternal creative process - presented I might add, in a liberating framework, which is empowering, and does not require anything in return, not even gratitude, saying only "go and do likewise" or "as I am sent even so send I you",


"What is the truth?" exclaimed Pontius Pilate, turning to wash his hands in a bowl of water.