The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by BW-userx If the theory of Evolution seems to have problems in proving anything about it then It would NOT be a theory. as it is still a theory then nothing about it is actually proven to be actually completely true. Because it is still a theory not fact! that you so say you love to fill your belief system with.

Even the best "theory" is still very much a guess. We have sequenced genomes. We observe strong similarities. Human fetuses grow gills, then re-absorb them. The list goes on.

"Evolution," to me, would be this: "a pigeon comes out of a robin's egg." But then, we seem to have a "male pigeon" and a "female pigeon," and they mate with each other to produce ... pigeons. Nothing but more pigeons. The male pigeon mates with the robin from whose egg it sprung, and ... nothing happens. How strange.

So, we have this theory. It seems to be a very good theory in many ways – except we've never seen it done, except among species of moths. A moth's egg has not yet produced a butterfly, even though both have wings.

Therefore, I would observe: "it's a theory, and it's a good theory in many ways, but it's far from a provable explanation," and it's inconsistent with what we observe every day with sexual reproduction, which seems to be stuffed with protective mechanisms which by-and-large we also do not fully understand.

Mind you, that doesn't mean that I'm turning to "In The Beginning™" to find my replacement answer to this Big Kahuna Question.™ I don't have an answer for it, but I'm fascinated by the question.

I'm simply pointing out that, good as it is, "evolution isn't enough." I'm also suggesting that it might not actually be the mechanism that we are looking for, which mechanism might still be undiscovered. Perhaps the "species only," even perhaps "confined to species," effect that we think we might be seeing in "species evolution" is in fact intentional. Perhaps there are controls in place to prevent "out of band" genetics from being born. We just don't know.

There's nothing wrong with Mr. Darwin's erudite speculations, nor with the many things which seem indeed to support it, except for one small thing: "it might in fact be wrong." Or, "incomplete." And we just have to accept that, I think. It's part of the game of science. We must never stop looking. "Newton's apple explained gravity," didn't it? Einstein didn't think so. "Evolution explains everything," doesn't it? Maybe, or not. Never stop looking. Never stop.

Originally Posted by hazel Personal experience mostly, mine and other people's. I grant that this is of no value to those who haven't experienced it; it is the very nature of personal experience not to be transferable. However, it is conclusive for the people concerned. Also I find that the existence of God makes far better sense of all I have learned about science, both at University and subsequently, than His non-existence does.

And I'll step in here and say, "I agree with Hazel." Personal experience is a valid observation, even if you don't experience the same thing. There are things that "science" tells us, through examination and measurement of measurable things. And, in parallel, there are things that "religion" tells us, too. One mode-of-thought studies the other, and the other studies the one, but I think that we'd be ignorant to say that either one of them is "ignorant."

"Science" is never going to affirm what "religion" says, and might strive mightily to disprove it, because that's how that mode of human thought has been purposely designed. But if you get out of your laboratory and go to church or synagogue or mosque or temple, that doesn't make you any less or any more of a scientist.

"Science" has a very specific scope: empirical evidence, reproducible experiments, and so on. That's what gives science its strength – and, some would say, its blindness.

Also – "religion" is always talking about fuzzy words, like "intuition," "faith," and "feeling." This is one thing that gives religion its extraordinary power. It boldly goes "where science fears to tread," because it believes (without empirical proof) that there are "angels" there. As we study human culture, archaeology and history, we can readily see that human beings have always pursued religion, in addition to science and engineering. I don't think they did so because they were ignorant or misguided. I think they were following their ... hearts. Their gut. Their instinct. Their faith. Their {g|G}od. And it was taking them places that science knows not.

"Science" needs to understand that in this world "there is far more than 'science.'" Science is made stronger, more balanced and therefore more useful to us, when this is understood. There are valid human modes of thought which run parallel to it, which are not constrained by its principles, and which feel things that science cannot know. If it were not so, religion would have faded-out centuries ago, and we'd all be scientists.

Originally Posted by ardvark71 If that were the case, I wouldn't be the person I am today. Regards...

A wannabe righteous control-freak too blind to see feeding the vermin keeps them around when they should have migrated so now they die plus one who lies to kids, yourself and is one step from drinking the k☠☠laid?

Originally Posted by hazel Personal experience mostly, mine and other people's. I grant that this is of no value to those who haven't experienced it; it is the very nature of personal experience not to be transferable. However, it is conclusive for the people concerned. Also I find that the existence of God makes far better sense of all I have learned about science, both at University and subsequently, than His non-existence does.

Because I have experienced events that have modified my views and been cautiously aware that there is some validity in "To those who don't know, no explanation is possible yet to those who do know, no explanation is needed" but that validity seems to only extend to frame of reference, not complete conclusions since it is entirely subjective. Because I would never want to, say, be judged in a court of law for anything at all serious where subjective evidence is allowed, by extension anything of large import, such as how one lives one's life, should not be based on subjective experience. That said, I recognize that may be simply because that experience has never happened to me and by now I think likely never will, but that is how it is so I must act accordingly. Additionally, having both primary and secondary experience of the closed minded abuses that so often accompany such "knowledge" even on the outside chance it is correct in the Big Picture, the time when that was of net gain for Humanity seems to have passed in the Here and Now.

I know it can be difficult as there are some religious folk who find Evolution so threatening that they fight it with an amazing furor, even pasting labels on some websites as something like "Science Today" to attempt to steal authority and credibility when they are actually Creationist sponsored sites that will deny! deny! deny! at any cost until their dying breath. So it is hardly surprising that so much misinformation and misconceptions still proliferate after what is rapidly approaching 200 years.

@ sundialsvcs - You are something of an enigma to me since you are so obviously intelligent, capable of critical thought, educated and well-read yet somehow seem to still be caught up in selective primary experience. While on one hand you have confidence regarding the nature of historical civilizations, you seem to utterly reject geological evidence including the fossil record as well as the macro and micro worlds that Science explores.

Evolution, as you note, is all around us and easily visible as Primary Experience to humans with the exception of new species generation, since that change takes place in time scales far beyond even a few human generations, at least since Historical time which is only about 5000-6000 years. Perhaps you don't accept that the Earth is over 4 Billion years old at all or that the Universe is almost 14 Billion years old, or maybe more importantly that humans are capable of charting such immense spans of Time. If this is so, there is likely nothing anyone can say or show you that will break through such unreasonable skepticism.

If, OTOH, you are open to internal debate you might find this fascinating --- BBC on Evolution Reality - How do we Know? ---

Originally Posted by enorbet @ sundialsvcs - You are something of an enigma to me since you are so obviously intelligent, capable of critical thought, educated and well-read yet somehow seem to still be caught up in selective primary experience. While on one hand you have confidence regarding the nature of historical civilizations, you seem to utterly reject geological evidence including the fossil record as well as the macro and micro worlds that Science explores. Evolution, as you note, is all around us and easily visible as Primary Experience to humans with the exception of new species generation, since that change takes place in time scales far beyond even a few human generations, at least since Historical time which is only about 5000-6000 years. Perhaps you don't accept that the Earth is over 4 Billion years old at all or that the Universe is almost 14 Billion years old, or maybe more importantly that humans are capable of charting such immense spans of Time. If this is so, there is likely nothing anyone can say or show you that will break through such unreasonable skepticism.

"Why, thank you!"

I am fully aware of the fossil record and do not deny it at all. It is obvious that Planet Earth is ancient. It is obvious that various forms of life have existed on it for a very long time.

It is also obvious to me that the Creation story is a beautiful, metaphorical, poem, not intended to be taken literally. Most civilizations have stories like this.

I am skeptical of "billions and billions™ of years" as an excuse or an explanation, though, for anything. (Sorry, Dr. Sagan. Loved your show. Don't agree.) I'm not persuaded that adding an arbitrary amount of time is sufficient to cause a genetic process that appears to be very "error-correcting" to somehow produce the enormity of life on earth, "each reproducing 'after its own kind,'" [merely] through the phenomena which we call "evolution."

I simply don't think that the process of "evolution" is enough to explain this. That is, to me, (pardon me ...) a scientific "leap of faith" that I am not willing to make. I think that evolution is an adaptive mechanism designed to promote genetic diversity and to enable life to adapt to changing conditions through natural selection. But it works because it has tight boundaries to work within. I think that these limiting mechanisms contra-indicate "evolution" as an adequate explanation for what we observe – and that "adding aeons to it" doesn't change things. I therefore look to some other process – and I don't know what it is.

We observe "evolution" very easily. We also observe that it has boundaries. The changes are slight and do not compromise the viability of the organism, nor its ability to mate with other species "of its kind." They occur rapidly enough to threaten us with running out of new (pig-)Latin names.

Meanwhile, we observe that arbitrary genetic combinations are not allowed to take place. The eggs do not fertilize. (How do they "know" not to?) Embryos do not make it to full term. (Sometimes, human embryos don't make it, either. Miscarriage occurs.) We can force some combinations, such as mules, but they are always sterile: they cannot reproduce. So, there are processes at work here – not fully understood – which seem to be directed at preventing the sort of thing that "beyond-species evolution" postulates. And I simply don't think that adding "millions of years" hand-waving to the story really makes it any more compelling.

We observe "the fossil record." Yes, we do. And we think that we "understand it," when what we're really saying is that it does not appear to be inconsistent with our present theory. But, that does not make our theory 'true.' (Neither 'false.') We know that man and monkeys are genetically similar – yet, different. We know that all primates are genetically similar. We find fossils that could represent "intermediate forms" that, if interpreted according to our theory, might appear to support our theory. But, are they "monkeys becoming man?" That's a leap that I won't make. I accept the evidence but not the conclusion. I see a question that needs answering, but I'm not persuaded that this is that answer. To me, it falls short.

It's easy to see why some people think that "intelligent design" is a very sensible explanation.

Someday, someone's gonna win "the mother of all Nobel Prizes" when they do discover the hidden process that would unlock genetic reproduction to make such strides – and then, somehow, to lock it again. A process that is able to produce viable new phylums, classes, orders, families, and genuses that reproduce ... "only after their own kind." I am not persuaded that "evolution" is actually that answer – no matter how much time you add to the mixing-bowl. I think that "evolution" has its important place but as a fine-tuning mechanism. We see what it does and doesn't do, and we want to wave our hands and declare that, "given time," it must account for everything. I'm not persuaded.

Crossing the species boundary means (we think ...) that a dramatic genetic change has occurred, even though such changes seem to be prevented. Furthermore, it produced a viable new creature ... two of them (both sexes). And, that new creature must then experience no more such changes. A male pigeon and a female pigeon both appear from two separate robin's eggs, then mate only with one another, and, despite having been produced from one set of robin's eggs, nevertheless possess enough genetic diversity to seed endless generations of "their new kind" – all pigeons, only pigeons, no robins and no blackbirds. That's a very dramatic thing, especially when you consider it succeeding!

Notice that I am not now going to start talking about deities or "creators." Instead, I am talking about what I consider to be an "as-yet unsolved mystery." Something that we haven't discovered ... yet.

Thank you, sundialsvcs for making your views in this matter more clear. However it is obvious from this latest post that you have yet to follow the provided link and read it all since it documents species change that has been observed by humans, in human time, not just the fossil record.

There are a few paragraphs regarding a speciated version of Finches found, curiously enough, on Galapagos Island but then goes on to a far more telling and deeper change in the longest running experiment in evolution, which has run continuously since 1988 producing over 67,000 generations of 12 strains of e coli. An important attribute of this continuum is that samples are regularly frozen so that real time checking of every increment is possible rather than reliance just on notation. Unlike the finches in which the changes are slight, excepting that they can only breed among themselves now and not with their ancestors, the differences are absolutely profound exactly because of accelerated generation production.

I'm sure you know the analog but it bears repeating that if one sets out on a journey in which no course corrections are possible and is less than 1 degree off dead center, that is not a problem if the journey is short but if the journey is a billion miles one will miss by as much as 100,000s of miles. Small changes over great distances, whether in Space or in Time, add up to very large differences, so "billions and billions" actually matters a great deal and is by no means a Deus ex Machina made up as a fudge by crafty evil scientists.

In any case I strongly encourage you to follow the link. It is a really good read that manages to deliver undiluted Science but in terms even a 6 year old can understand, if you'll pardon a nod there to good ol' Albert .

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs Meanwhile, we observe that arbitrary genetic combinations are not allowed to take place. The eggs do not fertilize. (How do they "know" not to?) Embryos do not make it to full term. (Sometimes, human embryos don't make it, either. Miscarriage occurs.) We can force some combinations, such as mules, but they are always sterile: they cannot reproduce. So, there are processes at work here – not fully understood – which seem to be directed at preventing the sort of thing that "beyond-species evolution" postulates.

This appears to be false: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid...gy)#Speciation

A few animal species are the result of hybridization. The Lonicera fly is an example of a novel animal species that resulted from natural hybridization. [...] Experimental studies suggest that hybridization offers a rapid route to speciation, a prediction confirmed by the fact that early generation hybrids and ancient hybrid species have matching genomes, meaning that once hybridization has occurred, the new genome can remain stable.[37] Many hybrid zones are known where the ranges of two species meet, and hybrids are continually produced in great numbers. These hybrid zones are useful as biological model systems for studying the mechanisms of speciation. Recently DNA analysis of a bear shot by a hunter in the North West Territories confirmed the existence of naturally-occurring and fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids.[38]

Another case of successful hybridisation is the "red wolf" of Texas. This used to be given protection as a rare species, when they did a DNA analysis on it and discovered that it is actually a hybrid of the grey wolf and the coyote. This hybrid population has existed for centuries. Unfortunately for the wolves, hybrids are scorned by the wildlife experts and are not thought to deserve any protection at all.

An even odder case is the herring gull. If you track herring gulls westward through the United States and Siberia and across the Urals into Europe, their wings gradually darken and their legs change from pink to beige to yellow. They end up as lesser black-backed gulls, a different species. In the UK, we have both species and they don't interbreed.

So hopefully everyone that wants to, can see the reason that the "jury is not still out" on Evolution, why those who actually research evidence know it as Fact. Will it likely continue to be refined? Sure! That's how Science rolls. Are deep fundamental failings likely? NO.

Wouldn't want to confuse passion and blind faith, a holey truth is different from a "holy truth..."
one we can accept the other's no different from the k☠☠laid!
¯¯̿̿¯̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿'̿̿̿̿̿'̿̿̿)͇̿̿)̿̿̿̿ '̿̿̿̿̿̿\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪̀●́)=o/̵͇̿̿/'̿̿ ̿ ̿̿

Originally Posted by enorbet So hopefully everyone that wants to, can see the reason that the "jury is not still out" on Evolution, why those who actually research evidence know it as Fact. Will it likely continue to be refined? Sure! That's how Science rolls. Are deep fundamental failings likely? NO.

Finches are one thing – the vast diversity of life on Planet Earth is another. As I've said, I suspect the existence of another, as-yet undiscovered, biological mechanism which would permit the apparent-strictures of evolution to be bypassed and yet(!) to produce viable new forms of life which thereafter reproduce after their own kind.

I speculate that it would be an extraordinary "exception to the rule," because if it were not somehow tightly controlled it could lead to fatal compromise of the genome. Most of the time, the genetic and organism changes introduced by evolution follow a narrow, "error-corrected," path.

I speculate that "random chance over 'billions of years'" is very much a "million monkeys writing Shakespeare" argument, if it were really "chance" and if it were really "random." Furthermore, it would be an extraordinarily slender chance (maybe ...) that the resulting combination would appear, both male and female, and be viable. I don't think that any amount of time – even "aeons" – is enough to explain-away those extraordinary events, absent something else that we have not yet stumbled upon.

Yes, this is speculation on my part.

And, I wouldn't call it a "deep, fundamental failing" my speculation one day turned out to have merit. It would be a "deep, fundamental, breakthrough!"

I certainly feel no need to defend present-day "scientific status-quo." Neither do I think that my musings, "there must be more ...," constitute scientific heresy. (Although I find it faintly amusing that my comments are being taken as "heretical!")

Keep speculating, because speculation sometimes turns out to be right. When you think that you "understand" everything such that you don't have to keep searching for surprises in nature, "turn over one more rock." You just might win a Nobel Prize.

Like I've said: "Isaac Newton was obviously right – why keep looking at Gravity?"

Circumventing the truth in order to find it.
Date: May 03, 2017 (started)

How did all of this get started in the first place? Not everyone wants to know the answer to the big question. "How did we get here?" For whatever their reasons. To them that do. Isn’t the answer “you came from your Mother and Farther”,enough to satisfy anyone? Apparently not. Because even today man is still looking for the answer to that question. “Where did we come from?” or “How did we get here?”

In man's quest to find this answer. One of two things happen, maybe three. They just accept the first answer that sounds good to them, or they look a little closer at all of the different ideas out there to try and find the answer to that question. When they come to a decision on what they choose to believe in. Do they actually look into it or take it at face value?

1. Everyone has this internal need to believe in something. It cannot be denied therefore it is always fulfilled.
2. The mind seeks for truth, but the truth can be denied.
3. When the truth is denied the mind then has to find something to replace it in hopes of gaining the same satisfaction it would have gained had it accepted the truth instead.

Regardless if they seek out this truth or not. They still have this internal need to believe. Everything that they do believe is a truth to them. Regardless if it is or not. It all gets stored into what is called the belief system. This is the system the mind uses to judge.

We all start out a truth. It is a truth that you have come into existence and are now here. You become aware of yourself because of your senses. You become aware of the outside of the self because of your senses. It is by your senses that you are given truth.

One's own senses do nothing but provide the self with the truth.

1. Touch, or feeling tells the truth. You either feel something or you do not feel something.
2. Smell tells the truth. You either smell something or you do not smell something.
3. Sight tells the truth. You either see something or you do not see something.
4. Hearing tells the truth. You either hear something or you do not hear something.
5. Taste tells the truth. You either taste something or you do not taste something.

Your mind wants nothing but the truth. Without the truth the mind can no longer live. How much truth it is deprived of determines how long it will live.

Using Sigmund Freud’s basic writings on, ID, superego, ego, pleasure principle, and reality principle.
Pleasure. What is in it that makes man want it so much? Because it feels good. Why does man want to feel good? So he can be satisfied. Without it one can never be satisfied. They are two points that meet together. Without satisfaction one can never have pleasure. Without pleasure one can never be satisfied. With satisfaction one has to feel a level of pleasure. One cannot have one without the other. They are so intertwined together they have become synonymous with each other.

Satisfaction is so important to man that some will even demand it. Others will inquire if another has obtained it. Are you satisfied? Some will even go out of their way to insure that everyone has been satisfied.

So what brings this satisfaction so that man can feel the pleasure that comes with it? The truth. The ID is the driving force that causes man to want pleasure, and want it right now. That is called instant gratification. This is all the ID knows. The ID all by itself that is all it is capable of learning. It has its senses that are attached to its mind that are capable of achieving this. When the mind was within the womb. That is all it had to live on. Instant gratification.

Whenever the embryo to neonate needs arose the internal system of the mother provides instant gratification to the being that is growing within her keeping it in a state of satisfaction. Without a satisfactory state of being within the mother's womb then that embryo could not grow into a healthy being.

The truth has to be ever present within that mother's womb at all times in order to ensure that the child can and will be born healthy and without defects of any kind. To the mind that does not understand what a truth is. They will never find it.

Within the mother's womb. The truth is that it has to be in good working order in order to produce a baby. The truth is that both parties have to be in good working order and without defect to produce a good working baby.

If there are genetic defects within either of the parents then the truth is that it occurred because somewhere down the line of their genetic histories a lie was introduced into that genetic system that caused it to mutate. It was a lie because it was not suppose to be there. Had it not been there then no mutation would have occurred. Because the truth is everyone is not suppose to be with any types of deformities.

If nothing but the truth is within the mother's womb then a healthy child is born. The truth is that the child has to have the proper nutrients to grow into a healthy infant. If the mother does not provide the proper nutrients into her system. Then the child cannot get what it needs to live. If deprived of this truth long enough it will die within the mother's womb.

If the mother is introducing harmful substances to herself and telling herself it will not hurt the child within it. That is the lie that is now being introduced into the child's system. If the mother keeps lying to herself and continues to take substances that cause harm to the child within her. Then it is because of that lie that was continually held on to that caused the child to either be born with deformities or death itself.

Therefore the truth is all important in every stage of the human life. From mental to physical deformities, and even death will occur as a result of deprivation of the truth.

The truth brings with it a healthy mind, body and soul. It keeps them in a constant state of pleasure. Completely satisfied as if they were a baby in the womb of a healthy mother.

It is when that one leaves its mother trouble can and will arise. Because it no longer has its mother's protection. That safe place where it once was. Whenever it became uncomfortable. That state of uncomfort was instantly removed by its mother.

Now it has to rely on whoever that is that shows up whenever it begins to make noise. The child's mind does not even know yet that anyone will come to relieve it of its discomfort. This is learned. All it knows is that it is feeling discomfort, and no longer wants this feeling to be present within it.

The defense mechanisms. Screaming shows itself. It is not even hopeful that someone will come. It is just a primal response to a negative feeling. A mother or caregiver eventually shows up to try and put this child back into a state where it is now satisfied so that it will stop screaming. Because that screaming is causing them discomfort. Pleasure like stress can be measured in various strengths. Remove the cause of discomfort that causes stress than pleasure returns. Satisfaction is achieved. Balance is restored.

The child eventually learns a sequence of events. Feel discomfort. Scream, someone comes to remove the discomfort. When the discomfort has been removed. Then satisfaction is again achieved. Hope and faith are now beginning to foster within that child. The mother or others that have to hear that child screaming already know how to apply these two without even thinking about it.

When the child begins to scream. He has learned that someone will come and tend to his needs. If that person does not show up instantly then hope has to be put into play. The child has to hope that another will show up. Remove that hope and the child will not even see any reason to try and get itself any help from another.

He now has to put faith into anyone. It does not matter. He does not even need to know who it is in order to put faith to work in his life. Faith is the belief in something that you cannot prove will take place, you can only hope it does.

The child has to put his faith in a stranger even. In hopes that he or she will show up and take care of its needs. The child cannot by any means prove that this other will help him. That proof has to come from the other that he put his faith in. Therefore, he can only hope that this other will prove what he believes about him was true.

Time is the only thing left to worry about. It is just a matter of time that this proof will present itself, and if that other, the one he put his faith in has an eternity to do so. Then the only thing left to worry about is. How much time you have left for him to prove it to you. People are dying everyday, minutes, even seconds apart. I am sure he is a very busy man proving himself to all of them as they go up to see him about what it was they believed about him. Just so he can prove them right or wrong.

You try finding time to be in more than one place at a time. Then multiply that by every human that dies. Then figure out where they die. Then try to be in every place at the moment of their death to visit them at the moment of their death. Everyone that dies. Not just a select few, but everyone.

You are going to be a very busy person that would need to have supernatural powers to do so. Even then, why make more work for oneself?

With supernatural powers. You could then just have them come see you after they die. Because they, the dead have nothing else left to do.

Therefore He does the same for us, makes less work for us, and within our limits. Just obey His commandments.

The mind is already set to do so. The child is a truth to start with. It’s mind is designed to receive nothing but the truth by the use of its senses. It knows nothing but the truth as a result of it. It is just a little truth wanting to be filled nothing but more truth. A lie is not even introduced into the child's life until when? That is when it starts. All of the child's troubles.

Just FTR our senses do not "provide the self with truth". They provide us with raw data and of a limited scope at that, and our brains try to organize that data into meaningful content largely based on pattern recognition of events that recur. Our interpretation of sensory input is highly subject to error. It is the job of the rational mind to asttempt to correct those errors and override what our senses appear to be telling us.

Originally Posted by Fool On The Hill But the fool on the hill Sees the sun going down, And the eyes in his head, See the world spinning 'round.

the truth is what then? say the senses of the eyes. ahh let see they see RAW DATA or they do NOT see RAW DATA. the truth is they see or they do not see. The truth is that they see what is there in front of them. what happens to it after that is left up to the mind to categorize.

it is still the same truth. a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Our interpretation of sensory input is highly subject to error. It is the job of the rational mind to attempt to correct those errors and override what our senses appear to be telling us. enorbet

If you see a brick coming at your head at 20 miles an hour. you go ahead and just keep rationalizing that it is not what you think it is AND it is NOT doing what you think it is, because your sensory input is highly subject to error.

and when it hits you in the head and knocks you on your butt. you just keep using your rational mind in telling your self that never happened and that pain you are now feeling as a result of it is not real either because your sensory input is highly subject to error.

if someone cuts you with a knife you keep processing that information because your sensory input is highly subject to error. So you cannot believe that red stuff you see pouring out of you is even there. let alone your blood. because your sensory input is highly subject to error.

when you smell smoke. you tell yourself that is not real because your sensory input is highly subject to error. and when you see that fire engulfing your house around you. you keep using your rational mind telling yourself your sensory input is highly subject to error. so that is not fire you see , nor is that heat you feel coming off of it real either because your sensory input is highly subject to error.

and when that fire then sets you on fire you keep telling yourself that you are not on fire because your sensory input is highly subject to error. you just stay there right where you are at enorbet. In a state of denial about the truth and just burn to death.

because your sensory input is highly subject to error.

therefore you can never trust what you see, hear, taste, feel, or smell because your sensory input is highly subject to error.


therefore you cannot trust anything around you. you have no idea what is real and what is not because your sensory input is highly subject to error.

therefore you will never know the truth about anything even your mind will not know how to process it. Because it cannot even trust its own senses because your sensory input is highly subject to error.

"Our senses must also regularly meet and greet in the brain to provide accurate impressions of the world."
source:
Scientific American

Rationalization:
1. the action of attempting to explain or justify behavior or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.
2. the action of reorganizing a process or system so as to make it more logical and consistent.

In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable—or even admirable and superior by plausible means. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.

example:
Our interpretation of sensory input is highly subject to error. It is the job of the rational mind to attempt to correct those errors and override what our senses appear to be telling us. enorbet

the plausible means used to try and make what I said doubtful using rationalisation.

Rationalisation happens in two steps:

1. A decision, action, judgment is made for a given reason, or no (known) reason at all.
2. A rationalisation is performed, constructing a seemingly good or logical reason, as an attempt to justify the act after the fact (for oneself or others).


It is the mind itself that can lie to itself and others by the use of rationalization not the senses. The senses are to provide the mind with what?
accurate impressions of the world