Think Science .

“There exist certain physical concept(s) independent of our perceptions which have certain properties(not necessarily disclosing everything about those(that) concept(s) ) which we are able to perceive independent of each other.”

If we can percieve something independent of our senses (which is a bit dicey) then we can also percieve other things about it. Theoretical since we are no longer limited by our senses, we can then percieve everything about it. We would thus arrive at an objective perspective wrt to that phenomenon. Also if we are perceiving something independent of our senses then we have arrived at a method where we can universally quantify the attributes of a certain phenomenon since we are no longer limited by an anthropomorphic observer bias.

Human reality is true only within the framework which it is applicable in. When we exclude this sphere of definitions it then ceases to be objective. Either we can observe phenomenon completely independent of our perceptions which would remove any subjective observer bias or we are still limited by our perceptions (independent perceptions are still perceptions).

I am stating that the only reality we can know (a sentient being capable of metaphysical questioning) is a subjective reality. Whether human or non human (first contact one day?) until we acquire omniscience we will all be perceiving a subjective reality.

Would ‘real’ be ‘real’ without anyone to observe it? Would ‘exist’ exist without anyone to ascertain it? Are there varying degrees of these attributes which can allow us to judge them on a scale depending on how probable they might be? Would less real or more real be feasible ways of defining something on the basis of how much we? On what about what we know? How do we quantify that as more or less objective? And what about that we do not know about? How do we arrive at ascertaining its attributes, before we discover it? I find these questions fascinating to say the least.

There are no concepts independent of our perceptions.

The ‘concept’ is in itself a concept and doesn’t have a standing own it’s own without an intelligent perception. Reality is a concept alone, and might have nothing to do with “original reality” and cannot be postively concluded either way, without having an outsider’s perception to this frame. But then again, the observer’s reality has to a subset of some other percetion to have an individual validation.

Given this rhetoric, we either have to chose to “believe” our perception as “reality”, if at all there is one, or, wait as prithvi said to acheive omniscience.

Reality is not what it used to be.

The concepts of time, space and motion are so confusingly interlinked that these doesn’t have any base stand point at singularities and at points open to chain-reasoning think patterns.

I’m personally convinced to a large extent that we humans have serious flaws in our perceptions and concept about all the three concepts above, but then again, that’s the best we can achieve as of now.

I have no clues as to what concept of time and space has, for example, a mosquitoe’s brain projects and to how similar is it to ours.

Our reality is our own set of perceptions of something which is out there, and even that sentence includes the space concept of “out there”, hard-wired to our brains.

I’ve known a few people enamored of communism and marxism.
In my experience these are both faiths bordering on religious belief.

Lets face it, Marx was writing in the 19th century working with a very archaic understanding of psychology, sociology and economics. We’ve learned a lot since then, but Communism hasn’t. Except possibly for the actual “communist” states which are all forced to make exceptions, compromises and adjustments in order to survive, basically because communism doesn’t work.

Just like most religions, there are a lot of good ideals embodied in communism. But also just like most religions there is a very dark side which believers have trouble acknowledging.

I’m fairly left and support a certain socialistic ideas, such as national health care (sadly lacking in my country), but not for any of the Marxist reasons.

However nice it might sound to some in the abstract, I think communism has not a chance in the world of living up to its ideals if you have to allow for real people. It’s like a bad novel where the characters are overly two dimensional. Communism only works if you can find people who live up to Marx’s quaint 19th century conception of human nature. Since communist states can’t find such people, they must try to reshape people into that mold to survive. No thanks.

Plenty of evidence has been gathered, for evolved moral systems.
Some resources:

“Origins of Virtue” Matt Ridley
“Born to be Good” Dacher Keltner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Nihilism is something that is always discussed when it comes to morality. People always think of themselves as blank slate and found religions to write something on that blank slate. Again everybody is so worried about Nihilsm. The whole worry about the dangers of nihilism if one rejects god is founded on the idea of the human as a blank slate. When people ask the question:

“What morality, if not his, should stop an atheist from doing whatever he wants?”

they are assuming that either god, or the cultural edifice of religion is what writes morality onto the “blank slate” that is a human being.
But humans are not a blank slate, there is an innate human nature which is the trellis that the vine of culture grows upon. Religion is not the only vine that can be grown upon it, and religion is not necessarily the vine that bears the best fruit.

The proper questions to ask are: what is the nature of the trellis of human nature? and what kinds of vines can we grow on it?

To see the idea of “The Blank Slate” blown completely out of the water and exposed as the mythology that it is, I cannot recommend Steven Pinker’s book of the same name highly enough. Philosophical discussions without addressing the information that Pinker presents are merely anachronistic word games.

This post will be answer to some of the questions we hear from those who just attribute gaps to some higher entity. So this post is all about answering those questions.

1- do you see your mind ?

I understand how my mind works and why I have the thoughts I do; how genetics effected my thought patterns and sociological events have triggered stimuli in me. You are much the same; constant Pavlovian conditioning to believe in the make-believe (god, religion - all completely baseless and imaginitive concepts with no basis in reality or truth.) has shaped your mind.

2- who is cotroling cromosoms ?

Who? No one. Evolutionary principles cause chromosomatic shifts. Mutations that are more adapt at dealing with their environment thrive, while the less adept die off.

3- who made Big Bang !

No one made it. It’s what would happen when incredibly large amounts of mass coalesce into a super-tiny area. Gravty causes the attraction, but eventually as energy increases and the laws of energy conservation mean that it has to give off mass and/or energy. The whole thing explodes at approximately the speed of light. Bang. Very big.

4- who created Peoples !

Technically? Chimpanzees. We evolved just like every other observable species.

There is evidence that maybe outside forces played a part in human evolution, but certainly not god… God wouldn’t have reversed the evolutionary traits of our skeletal system, which is what has happened with us vs. chimps. But that’s a whole different discussion that is entirely rooted in science, and yet another place where god is non-existant and not a factor.

5- where is the coming energy for life ( for example …for electron motion ? )

Heat. Motion. Pressure. What about these makes no sense? Go read like an introduction to physics. It will answer a lot of questions.

*phew* that’s all for this time. There will be more questions hitting in comments soon. I’ll answer them as soon as i get them. So watch out for skeptical drive #2.