Logic is it's own fallacy.

[wanabe]

An Idea can have many purposes it never stops being useful.

I referred to the majority population in that most people don't recognize the illusion until it has already been cast aside.

By whom is the idea cast aside by then?

This is something we see daily, the illusions serve the purpose of allowing us to reform our ideas; they are tools.

surely, I can agree with this; part of the reason why an idea can always useful.

When is one 'right' in being the first of the majority?

perhaps: This comes from the assumption that the majority decides when an idea is an illusion…But there must be a first person or a first group that recognizes the illusion first... When are they or that person correct in assigning an idea as an illusion?

[ChaoticMindSays]

perhaps: This comes from the assumption that the majority decides when an idea is an illusion…But there must be a first person or a first group that recognizes the illusion first... When are they or that person correct in assigning an idea as an illusion?

They are correct at any time. For example, we are correct in assigning the status of illusion to these ideas though it may not be the proper time to cast said illusion aside. There is a minority population, philosophers, physicists, etc., who are aware of the illusions, in fact it is their jobs to deal with these illusions. We are the tool wielders while most others are not even aware of the non reality of the tools. when the person(s) who is using the tool decides it is no longer necessary they put it down and pick up something more appropriate. It may still be of use in the future, but for now it has served it's purpose.

[wanabe]

it may not be the proper time to cast said illusion aside.

Why not?

Is it not in the best interest of humanity to have as many tool wielders as possible(surly some will be better than others)? If we eliminate illusions for the majority we can all wield tools. To me; knowledge/education should not be kept secret or in the minority.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Is it not in the best interest of humanity to have as many tool wielders as possible(surly some will be better than others)? If we eliminate illusions for the majority we can all wield tools. To me; knowledge/education should not be kept secret or in the minority.

Well.. Just because they are not identified as illusions by most doesn't not mean that they cannot be used as tools by said most. Your hands are tools but they are also extensions of yourself. That is what these illusions are, extensions of ourselves. If we just dropped all of these illusions... It would be like humanity looses the use of it's hands. The only difference is that instead of becoming incapable(which is a definite possibility) humanity would have more of a chance to develop telekinesis. So if we dropped all the useful illusions that we surround ourselves with... well it would be a major risk.

It's either a process of development or a leap. Either can go backward or forward but if the process regresses it's not nearly as big of a deal as if a giant leap is made backwards. Many people need these illusions, or at least feel as if they do. So if the illusions we have now are dismantled another set will quickly fill in the empty spaces.

[wanabe]

This needs to leave allegory(How symbolic).

Take time for instance; it only exists in our minds. We do thousands of scientific and day-to-day calculations involving time. Would we not have a more accurate picture of what is going on in the universe if we substituted what is really occurring in stead of time and calculated that?

Just because they are not identified as illusions by most doesn't not mean that they cannot be used as tools by said most.

I'm getting an image of plastic-toy-mock-power-tools used by children to pretend they are doing something. Seems it would be time better spent fetching tools for daddy from the rack to help build a real thing.

"It would be like humanity looses the use of it's hands"...to twiddle their thumbs.

So if we dropped all the useful illusions that we surround ourselves with... well it would be a major risk.

What is the risk?

We have been in the progress stage for long enough(to think that out logic is illogical for example); how about a leap? Even if our current illusions are simply replaced, at least we have some new ideas to work with.

[ChaoticMindSays]

What is the risk?

We have been in the progress stage for long enough(to think that out logic is illogical for example); how about a leap? Even if our current illusions are simply replaced, at least we have some new ideas to work with.

Well.. The risk is that the leap could just as likely be negative as it could be positive. We could drop all our illusions, loose our ability to function and then take up a set of illusions that are inferior to the set which we posses now. I doubt if we will ever be rid of all social illusions.

Leaps like this don't happen very often, they are to hard for the general public to wrap there heads around, especially if the leap is to be one for the good. If most people cannot even really understand the concept we are talking about why would you expect them to accept the new illusions? They may be better but would seem... Irrational, or at the very least strange to them.

[wanabe]

Well.. The risk is that the leap could just as likely be negative as it could be positive.

Granted, what is(could be) this(a/some) negative risk(s)? As far as I can tell, your argument is that: it would be strange for some people?

I don't think we need to drop, or rid our selves of, the illusions all together to get past them. We simply need to see them for what they are, and regard them in their context as useful, not in all contexts; as we do with time for example.

Leaps like this don't happen very often, they are to hard for the general public to wrap there heads around, especially if the leap is to be one for the good.

I don't think that people would be resistant to a strange idea if they believe it is for the greater good.

People accept a great deal of things they don't understand(one could argue that nothing is understood).

[ChaoticMindSays]

Hmm... Well what we are talking about here is basically paradigm shifts, or parts of paradigm shifts. So, say, that we discover the world isn't round but we can't figure out what it is and those that do know what it is can't communicate it fully to the others, or the others don't accept the idea. So they can't accept what would be considered progress they slide backwards to "the earth must be flat". Purely hypothetical, it would have to be a much more complicated idea for this to happen.

I don't think we need to drop, or rid our selves of, the illusions all together to get past them. We simply need to see them for what they are, and regard them in their context as useful, not in all contexts; as we do with time for example.

Your right, that is what I have been referring to as the 'process'.

I don't think that people would be resistant to a strange idea if they believe it is for the greater good

I think people are resistant to any idea that doesn't or can't assimilate to their old fixed beliefs.

I think that we would progress much more quickly if more people realized how important metaphysics is.

[wanabe]

ChaoticMindSays,

...say, that we discover the world isn't round but we can't figure out what it is and those that do know what it is can't communicate it fully to the others, or the others don't accept the idea. So they can't accept what would be considered progress they slide backwards to "the earth must be flat"

Why would non-acceptance of an idea cause people to regress into an idea they know is false?

Assimilation of an idea is a matter of communication. One doesn’t necessarily need to fully communicate an idea(and probably can't). We know that in actuality the world isn’t round; it is mountainous, filled with oceans, forests, and people. Whose shapes can only be communicated by seeing them for one’s self. Yet people accept the idea as true without ever seeing the whole world.

I think that we would progress much more quickly if more people realized how important metaphysics is.

Agreed. Among many other things.

[ChaoticMindSays]

I said, "Purely hypothetical, it would have to be a much more complicated idea for this to happen."

I see evidence of it everywhere, it has certainly happened dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. It's all about the communication from generation to generation really. The earth example is just a simple example, not something that would ever actually happen. However, I could see, say, a regression backwards into a much more complex paradigm because of peoples lack of an ability to understand what would be progress. I'll give you an example- (This is a discussion between me and meleager.)

ChaoticMindSays wrote:

Paradigm- A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

Who thinks this is going to occur in science soonish? Who thinks it needs to? Does anyone have any information on new ideas that are being worked upon? I grow tired of the intellectual trap we seem to be stuck in.

Yes, I think the paradigm of scientific materialism is ending, and that the intelligent design community is doing the fundamental work to bring this about, primarily through its challenges to Darwinism and championing of non-materialist thought in various social and academic areas.

Me,

Hmm.... that paradigm shift seems quite a lot like the one Darwinism helped us escape. I would view that as being a regression. Hopefully we can avoid degenerate paradigm shifts.
A progressive paradigm shift would be to transcend our ideas of evolution and such so that we may come closer to the completion of said Ideas. Now we are looking from the bottom up, after the shift we will be looking from the top down and will have a much better perspective.

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... php?t=4183 Here is the link if you want to read the remainder.

[wanabe]

ChaoticMindSays,

I see evidence of it everywhere, it has certainly happened dozens, perhaps hundreds of times. It's all about the communication from generation to generation really.

Can you be more specific?

While I can almost see what you are getting at: people mistaking what progress may be. ID or god existing is always a possibility. I think it's a poor example; not showing progress or regress.

Perhaps the issue is not that people are confused about what progress is. Perhaps it's that different(groups of)people want a particular progression. Showing illusions for what they are could create a divide. Example: the divide between science/religion; To generalize any group of opposing views. This divide is not detrimental to overall progress however because it will likely cause each group to rethink their ideas. Perhaps even creating a whole new branch of thinking.

Cooperation is wonderful, but we are born of competition.

Forgive my assumptions. It seems that you are getting slightly frustrated with my questioning. To maintain a quality report; have you any questions for me(though I feel that the above paragraph may have alleviated some of that already)?

[ChaoticMindSays]

wanabe

While I can almost see what you are getting at: people mistaking what progress may be. ID or god existing is always a possibility. I think it's a poor example; not showing progress or regress.

You are correct, there is always the possibility that these could be true. However, I see it as being a regression because it would literally be a step backwards in time. I don't like the idea of I.D. myself but do believe in some form of higher entity or 'God'. I.D. is pretty much just a twist off of main stream religion to combat the theory of evolution, it is basically the same as the paradigm we were in 100 years ago.

When people discover that their world view(s) is (are) wrong they tend to get scared or, at the very least, flustered. They will grasp at anything that may explain the concept that they no longer have the ability to understand, even if the thing they grasp at is wrong. It is surely much easier to leap down hill than to make giant strides up the face of a cliff.

Perhaps the issue is not that people are confused about what progress is. Perhaps it's that different(groups of)people want a particular progression. Showing illusions for what they are could create a divide. Example: the divide between science/religion; To generalize any group of opposing views. This divide is not detrimental to overall progress however because it will likely cause each group to rethink their ideas. Perhaps even creating a whole new branch of thinking.

This is a very good point. I believe many things are relative, but we could find specific thing that all, or most, people agree are progress.
1. Strengthening humanities chance at survival.
2. Promoting peace.
3. Gaining knowledge.
4. Working to preserve our earth, and if effect, ourselves.

Some people may disagree that these things are progressive, and surely they are just as correct as the people who would agree with me. But the fact is that the majority of people would like to preserve this world for future generations and promote peace.

I think the relative views of different factions of people are just wheels and cogs in the machine that is 'overall progress'.

Cooperation is wonderful, but we are born of competition.

Hmm... I read somewhere recently that competition is, mainly, the way we use it, a lower brain (reptilian brain) function. Competition is just another illusion. Not only is it an illusion but it is an illusion that I, for one, believe to be utterly out-dated. Competition needs a renovation.

Forgive my assumptions. It seems that you are getting slightly frustrated with my questioning. To maintain a quality report; have you any questions for me(though I feel that the above paragraph may have alleviated some of that already)?

Actually I am enjoying this conversation quite a bit.
Forgive me if I seem to be getting frustrated, for I surely am not.

What illusions do you think we have that need to be renovated, reformed, or just flat dropped? I'm going to make a list and post it later.

[wanabe]

ChaoticMindSays,

As far as I am concerned about ID. God would have told us, not through the word of man, but by a booming voice in the sky that says "I made this"(or some thing grand like that). Short of that, 'he' doesn't want us to know for certain('he' wants us to have faith) So we must come up with potential alternatives if with wish to answer the question: where did we come from?

Groups of the same species cooperate so that they may be stronger against other groups of the same species. All groups of a species would cooperate(some able to cooperate better than others) if a thing threated all of the groups. The competition I speak of is not one we can control our selves; most don't even notice it. Different species need some of the same resources. Not all members of a species will get the resources they need. They will not get what they need because another species has already taken it. This is competition in its rawest form. It is ever present, never outdated.

I think the relative views of different factions of people are just wheels and cogs in the machine that is 'overall progress'.

That's what I was saying and so it is best to at least attempt to show illusions so that the machine can be come more precise.

Progress: a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage.
We have agreed that an objectively higher or further stage does not exist; correct? Progress then is movement toward a subjective goal. I think it is pointless to make a list.

What simply needs to happen is that if a group or person believes something is an illusion they should show it to be so; through logic/reasoning. There ought not to be anything eliminated however. Keep each idea/form so we can see how things are manipulated and used so that we may create another idea. Like old inventions, we did not destroy all of the old versions because there was some thing 'better', we kept them around(among other reasons) so we could learn from them and be inspired.

[ChaoticMindSays]

As far as I am concerned about ID. God would have told us, not through the word of man, but by a booming voice in the sky that says "I made this"(or some thing grand like that). Short of that, 'he' doesn't want us to know for certain('he' wants us to have faith) So we must come up with potential alternatives if with wish to answer the question: where did we come from?

I always think of ID as an experiment. 'God' doesn't announce itself because that would negate the purpose. Of course if God is omniscient an experiment would be pointless but I don't think omniscience is something that could actually exist.

Progress: a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage.
We have agreed that an objectively higher or further stage does not exist; correct? Progress then is movement toward a subjective goal. I think it is pointless to make a list.

Hmm... This is a tricky one. I don't agree that a objectively higher stage definitely does not exist. But I do agree that the "higher stages" are mostly relative.

Actually, A objectively higher stage probably does exist.

If you look at the stages as things that either coincide with or go against nature than we currently are in a objectively lower stage than we would be if we coincided with nature while maintaining our technological advancements.
But, of course, an argument could be made that the superiority of said stage is also relative.

What simply needs to happen is that if a group or person believes something is an illusion they should show it to be so; through logic/reasoning. There ought not to be anything eliminated however. Keep each idea/form so we can see how things are manipulated and used so that we may create another idea. Like old inventions, we did not destroy all of the old versions because there was some thing 'better', we kept them around(among other reasons) so we could learn from them and be inspired.

When I said 'drop the illusions' I meant to put down the outdated ones, not get rid of, and move on to the new better working ones. Old illusions are always useful as references.

[wanabe]

I don't think omniscience is something that could actually exist.

...ok...

A objectively higher stage probably does exist.

...wouldn't god(omniscience) be a higher stage...

an argument could be made that the superiority of said stage is also relative.

... I don't mind fence sitters; being one my self, but... I guess what I'm trying to say is that you seem to be contradicting your self.

When I said 'drop the illusions' I meant to put down the outdated ones, not get rid of, and move on to the new better working ones. Old illusions are always useful as references.

Very well.