Benefits of science, religion, capitalism, & socialism.

[Guv]

How many of you have thought about the benefits of science, religion, capitalism, & socialism? Perhaps this should be two threads: Science & religion, capitalism & socialism.

My vote goes for science and capitalism as the primary benefactors, with religion not doing much for us, and socialism having a negative effect.

Consider war and crime.

None of them have done much to prevent war, crime, genocide, et cetera. While scientists are generally anti-war and anti-crime, science itself seems to me to be neutral on these issues. The other three (especially religion) talk against war and crime, but have not been very effective. The example of the USSR could be used as argument for socialism being in favor of government sponsored criminal activity, but some would say they were communists, not socialists.

On the issue of war and crime, none of the above seems to be better than the others, although maybe the pseudo sciences like psychology and sociology might become real science and have an effect in the future.

How about slavery and human suffering?

For the first 5000 or so years of civilization, most humans were slaves or serfs facing back breaking work for little more than a subsistence level life. They died young and suffered from various diseases. For most of that time, religion did not even go on record as being opposed to slavery or other inhuman working conditions. To the best of my knowledge, the Quakers were the first to officially oppose it about 200-300 years ago, and I do not remember any reference to another religion officially opposing it prior to the twentieth century. I think the old testament directed the freeing of Jewish slaves after seven years, but did not oppose slavery. Perhaps some theology buff can enlighten us on which, if any, religion officially opposed slavery, and when they first took such a position. Without considering official religious opinion, does anybody remember an individual opposing slavery on religious grounds prior to the twentieth century?

What about science (and its offspring, technology) and capitalism? They never took a position on slavery or human suffering, but they seemed to have done a lot to solve the problems.

If you had a serious infection, would you want antibiotics or prayer? If gangrene set in and you had to have a leg amputated, would you thank the scientist who developed anesthesia or the religious type who prays for your recovery?

Medical science has certainly improved the life of the average person far more than any of the others. I think this is slam dunk for science. Who gets your vote on this one: The hard hearted unemotional, uncaring scientists who had a positive effect or religion which told us to that suffering was part of god’s plan and that we might be happy after we die?

Why do you think slavery no longer exists in the more advanced nations? I believe it is due to capitalism. Not that the robber barons were nice guys. The change from feudalism to capitalism was an evolutionary process. It is just that you cannot run a complex modern industrial economy with slave labor. That was the downfall of the USSR. You can stand over a man with a whip and make him plant corn or dig a ditch. The man with the whip can tell when the slave is working, and the whip is an effective incentive. The man with the whip is not smart enough to know when to use it in dealing with most of the more complex tasks required for an industrial economy. Furthermore, a whip does not do a good job of motivating a man doing work more complicated than simple agricultural tasks. I once worked in a place that had an apropos joke: “The floggings will continue until morale improves.” Aside from being evil, a whip is not effective.

My liberal socialist-oriented teachers never had a kind word to say about industrialists, and generally portrayed them as evil. I look around and see automobiles, TV’s, computers, and all sorts of other wonderful consumer goods. Who is responsible for all the goodies I enjoy? I vote for Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Ford, Rothschild, et cetera. Industrialists, robber barons, and bankers. I do not think that religious leaders or the likes of Karl Marx had anything to do with the good life I live.

Anybody want to claim that religion and socialism have done more for us than science and capitalism?

[simonm]

I would be inclined to say that my "votes" would be for Science and Socialism. I don't see why you lump socialism and religion together since socialism (particularly communist) is usually anit-religion.

Still, in reality, I think you have to take a bit from all four. The real question is the balance. Even though I know you (Guv) are in favour of capitalism, I bet you wouldn't be in favour of totally un-restrained capitalism? i.e. There needs to be some sort of regulation to prevent monopolies emerging etc.

I am (generally speaking) in favour of socialism but not in a traditional sense. As you (Guv) mentioned, there are problems with socialism such as incentive.

Why do you think slavery no longer exists in the more advanced nations? I believe it is due to capitalism.

You may be partially right but need I remind you that of the western democracies, not many people would argue that the most capitalist nation would be the USA. They were also one of the last to abolish slavery.

The example of the USSR could be used as argument for socialism being in favor of government sponsored criminal activity, but some would say they were communists, not socialists.

Is this not a contradiction? Surely a definition of a crime is an action against the state. If a state sanctions or "sponsors" an action then surely it is not actually a crime?
Besides, although countries like the USSR and China are, so called, communist nations, if you actually look at communist priniciples, their systems have very little to do with communism.

As for religion and science, I think they are tools to achieve different ends. Many people don't understand this and try to disprove one with the other. I think someone once said something along the lines of : 'Science is about how things happen, Religion is about why things happen'.

[kedaman]

I don't vote for any of them since they all are against perfection, but on the other hand i don't care either since they all work to evolve perfection in "near" future.

Simon i was to write this after i read Guv's post but you mentioned it already Science vs Religion is an incompatible comparation. They do explain and bring up theories but in totally different scope. I'm sure most adopt science as reality but a lot of them also adopt a religion and live with the contradictions, by not caring. I don't care either but i'm not adopting any and stays sceptical. This is basically because the scope of religions are usually on a more lowlevel resolution, handling macroscopical theories and axioms that don't subclass what is visible. Science reverse engineers microscopical, visibile, highlevel axioms to conclude lower level theorems, which sounds reasonable but is in fact illogical, and yet there is no universal explanation to our existance, the basics of the language of reality.

[simonm]

I'm sure you have some absolutely wonderful theories and I just wish I could understand you.

[Guv]

Simonm: A comment of yours brings up a communication problem. Yes, by strict definition crime refers to some activity defined by a political entity to be illegal.

In the sense of that definition, the USSR committed no crimes against its citizens. The only word I can think of for them is Unethical, which also applies to Nazi Germany. Unethical seems so mild for use in the context of these totalitarian regimes, but I guess that is the word I should have used. Perhaps I should have said that they were bad or evil.

BTW: I consider the words ethical, legal, and moral as referring to entirely different, but often overlapping concepts.

• Ethical to me means correct or right in some absolute sense related to the nature of a human being or other entity, without regard to any civil laws or religious beliefs. Ethical behavior for a tiger is different than ethical behavior for a person. If the tiger can outfight a competitor for food, killing him in the process, that is okay for the tiger, but not for a man. Oddly enough, tigers, lions, and other predators rarely kill their own kind, perhaps making them more ethical than people.
  
• Legal behavior is that which conforms to civil law, but is often not ethical. For example, the current US forfeiture laws are abominable, and I am surprised that the supreme court has upheld them. That is only one example from a nation which tends to have decent laws.
  
• Moral to me relates to activities (or thoughts) which are defined as sins by some religion, but which might seem quite innocuous to a nonbeliever.

Most people would agree that deliberate murder motivated by greed is bad under all of the above concepts, while being calm & pleasant is good under all of the above. Between those extremes I am sure that many of you do not have my perfect understanding of what is correct, good, proper behavior. Instead you rely on whims, laws, religious beliefs, what your mother told you, myths, et cetera.

[simonm]

For example, the current US forfeiture laws are abominable, and I am surprised that the supreme court has upheld them. That is only one example from a nation which tends to have decent laws.

"Forfeiture"? What is that?

I can think of a few other absurd American laws but I won't go into them now as it is not the point of the thread.

[Guv]

Federal forfeiture laws were passed about 20 or so years ago primarily aimed at major drug dealers. The idea is that property that is some how related to criminal activity can be confiscated. Local jurisdictions have since passed their own forfeiture laws.

There need be no convicition for the criminal activity. In some cases, you do not even have to be tried for the criminal activity, merely arrested or indicted.

The law enforcement agency responsible for the arrest can sell the property and use the proceeds for agency expenses. There is little or no requirement for accountability for the funds, allowing for what amounts to legalized theft.

Some terrible examples.

• A man used his wife's car to pick up a prostitue and have sex with her in the car. The car, belonging to his wife was forfeited. As amatter of principle without fees, the ACLU fought this to the supreme court and lost.
  
• Person A, alleged to be a drug dealer was indicted in about 1987. I do not know the dispostion of this case, if any. Person B bought a million dollar piece of real estate from A in about 1990, and sold it to person C in about 1992. A year or so after C bought the property, the justice department claimed that they initiated internal paperwork to confiscate the property in about 1988, and that the orginal sale to person B was invalid. C was told that he could sue B, who in turn could sue A. I do not know how the courts ruled in this case, but it certainly suggests some horrible possiblities. Note that there were no public records available to B or C or the title companies, so that it was not possbile for B or C to know that their purchases were invalid. The title companies were not liable since they could not be accused of overlooking any public records.
  
• I have never read of such a case, but the elderly infirm grandparents of a stong domineering teanager could lose their home if the grandson dealt in drugs from the property or was arrested, but not convicted, of such actitivity.
  
• A hurricane damaged property owned by a black women, who withdrew $5000 from her bank account and set off on a 100 mile trip to buy tools and lumber needed for repairs. She carried cash because she did not expect to be able to pay by check in a town where she was not known. Local police stopped her for a possible traffic violation (or perhaps just suspicion). They considered the possession of that much cash as a presumption of her being a drug dealer. They confiscated the cash and her truck. It took her several days to get offical paperwork and a letter from her bank. At this point, the local police told her that she could have her truck and $4000.00 of the cash back. They pointed out that she would be better off with this deal than the alternative of paying an attorney and waiting weeks or months for a court hearing.

These laws are a license allowing local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to steal.

Note that it is not necessary to prove that the property owner commited any crime. It is not even necessary to prove that the owner had any knowledge of the alleged crime.

[simonm]

I didn't know about these laws and I must say it amazes me. What happened to the principle 'Assume Innocent before until proven guilty'?

I think every country has some absurd laws of some kind or another. Britain has some absurd laws; mostly ones that were passed hundreds of years ago like the blasphemy laws. They are rarely enforced though.

[Guv]

Innocent until proven guilty only applies when a loss of life or liberty is a possible consequence.

The burden of proof is much lower in non criminal cases. The level of proof necessary under the forfeiture laws is almost non existent. The property owner need not be proven guilty of anything. It is only necessary to provide reason to believe that a crime was committed, and that the property owner did not object to the alleged criminal use of the property.

The case of the man using his wife's car to have sex with a prostitute is a classical example. If the next door neighbor stole the car and it was reported stolen prior to the sex act, then the car could not be legally confiscated.

It might be confiscated anyway if the arresting officer did not know of the theft report. In this case, it could still cost attorney's fees to get the car back. If the car were reported stolen after the sex act, and the owner knew the thief, the car would probably be lost and gone for good.

[kedaman]

Ok Simon, I'll explain again.

Since there's no way to relate knowledge with reality but to define we assume that we know. You try to adapt to an environment in which you can function as a part, take a role, and also understand. It's not relevant to explain why you do, because that's seems natural to you. You are bound to use norms, you feel more safe with laws and definitions, you have a desire for consistent knowledge. This is maybe how and why your reality actually exist. Think about your dreams, who created them but your mind? Now think who created universe if not your mind again? Your desire to think and to understand builds up a world around you to interact with, some sort of solitaire game you play to keep yourself entertained for eternity.

Consistent knowledge might come in big packages, like science and religion, they function as manuals, as tools for you to understand something. They might satisfy your desire but as soon as they are inconsistent you begin to doubt if you should use them. These inconsistenses appears between packages more often because the packages are built to explain a certain scope of phenomenons. You decide to choose to which to rely on, you begin to sort out what knowledge you want to use, and you actively start to consider there is something called "reality", some sort of place where everything is consistent, because it just is. If you think something is real enough, it becomes real. In the process you actually forget what you really are, (maybe you were a god who had nothing else to think about) since that makes you feel uneasy. Or maybe this has always been your case, a strife for knowledge that also trapped you into restriction.

I just read trough what i wrote and i imagine you struggle getting my point again I decided not to rewrite it though. I'm diving a bit deeper... I hate psychology grrr...

You are a human, you see stuff, you wake up the morning clock ringing 6:30, eat breakfast, you go to work and talk to your friends, etc etc... (imagine i describe a regular day in your life) You assume all this happens because it's "selfevident" not because it's convenient to think this is probably what happens next. You've learned in school that 2+2=4, that Earth is flat even if it doesn't look flat. You might have learned that there's a God that takes care of you, that keeps track of everything. You understand, these two things can co-operate, they are consistent, but you can't directly verify that the earth is round because you haven't seen it yet, you haven't seen god yet. This is because what you percept with your eyes is usually more trustable, but then again sometimes you know it is a trap for your eyes, you look in your mirror and see another person looking at you, you know it's not how it is, you know that it's the light that you reflect. You build up an instinct to know what is "real". What isn't you won't accept, what doesn't seem to fit into the picture you doubt, what you think is reasonable is also probably right. etc etc.. You also make up rules of how to act on different situations, really complex rules, your social life, ethical and moral issues, everything to keep your mind occupied every day, in a whole lifetime.

Am I beginning to make sense now? Not yet? Almost? Ok back to philosophy

You have strong faith in something, you really believe that there is a God, or you really believe there is a computer in front of you since you can see it, touch it, pick it up and throw it out of the window , anything. It's absurd to say it's otherways, it's absurd to even think about it. What is selfevident is what you have so strong faith in that you take it as solid fact. You demand solid facts in a lot of issues, because solid facts makes you feel comfortable. you get confused, you get surprised when you are mistaken. You demand that there is solid ground under your feet -> there is solid ground under your feet, you demand that there is a sofa in the living room -> there is a sofa in the living room (don't think you can go demand that there is beer in the refrigerator because you "know" there isn't) In fact knowing that you don't know if there is or is not beer in the refrigerator makes it possible for both to be facts, you take faith in that there is a solid fact behind the issue, that there either is or is not beer in the refrigerator but that you can't be too sure, then you suddenly realize you bought beer yesterday, and immediately it becomes solid fact that there is beer in the refrigerator. You go and open it and voila! Solid fact! Congrats! Have a drink! In case you didn't remember you bought it you go check it out, and find the beer, your might think back and recover the memory that you bough the beer, you might get surprised that there is beer, you might notice that you haven't bought beer at all, (now I see that you think what I think you think what i'm thinking) in any case you can co-operate with it, there really is a way to assume Solid fact is behind something that might be or not be true. But what was solid fact again? YES! It was something you had very strong faith in.

Knowledge is power, knowledge is a more powerful tool than you can ever imagine, because it's what you imagine. YOU IMAGINE that knowledge can be applied as SOLID FACT. In other words, you take strong faith in some information (but this time i'm using other words for it) You EXTRAPOLATE the idea of having SOLID FACTS behind something to everything, and this you label REALITY. YOU IMAGINE that there is a REALITY where everything consists of SOLID FACTS by demanding that there has to be CONSISTENCY which in turn is a NORM for keeping you comfortable and SATISFIED as a HUMAN. Now you realize what a complex being you are, you've built up all of this yourself haven't you? You refer to your knowledge and say that it can't be true, that there are others around you that have affected you, that this knowledge comes from others, HUMANITY, the likes of you who try to collect SOLID FACTS to share with everyone. Makes sense doesn't it? You also demand that SOLID FACTS stay SOLID FACTS, you have had experience that something that you thought was real was prooven false. You define logics, you define a language to proove and to judge information and their relationships, you suddenly realize there isn't a way to proove everything... anything, that there isn't a way to retrieve SOLID FACT, how sad is that? you can't let this happen! You substitute this hole with the existance of AXIOMS which tells you that something is SELFEVIDENT. LOOK AT YOURSELF! You really struggle to deny what is even more selfevident! You're the most stupid being universe, you don't know anything at all! ARGH! How can this be true you say!

Ok, ok not many do come to this point, they are smart enough to avoid stepping on this dead spot. By introducing some reasonable level of ignorance and a buffer of knowledge to always keep loyal to you are safe. By "not caring" you can keep yourself satisfied, by having a huge selection of knowledge that applies on specific cases, on ranges of scopes, you effectively avoid stepping on the dead spot. Call it human stupidity, a very natural way to be content. You've restricted yourself from knowing everything, forcefully forgetting the absurd fact, that you are one lonesome being. Forcefully imaginating, restricting yourself from being left out from your world. Some people have a respect for death, some fear death. The same built in fear you have for being left out from your world. This fear is so deeply enclosed inside you that you don't know it exist most of the time, you keep it that way, you rather want to get hurt, and eventually die in this universe than returning to eternal lonelyness. But the barrier is really there, there is a mental filter that you can remove forcefully if you want, you can really "wake up" from this dream if you really want to. It's just a qwestion of time. It's just a qwestion of knowledge, if you seriosly become bored, tired of standing at this point, standing at the dead spot where you can see the whole universe from a bird perspective, that is a very unpleasant perspective, you know what you have to do, there is door behind you which says "exit" and you can leave this all behind. You look at me with fear in your eyes, or if you are smart enough you look at me with rolling eyes. Can't you get more crazy than this? Well if you doubt me, read this all over again, until you see this is how it is. This is reality, this is what you've been doing to yourself for you don't know how long.

Let me tell you that i'm the same person as you, i'm also human, i know how to act, to interact with my reality, to retrieve information to process it and to do my decisions. Only a half year ago I was totally lost, I was into some kind of "lowest point of my life" where everything seemed so meaningless and dry. I was ready to die any second. I wouldn't have hesitated to do that if I knew there was something. Time would heal my problem, and a half year passed but it only made me realize what I am.

Damn! This doesn't even fit into one post!

[kedaman]

Only a year ago i had a theory, that I was the same person as everyone, that I was reincarnated in someone else body until i've been acting as every single human being and maybe every single animal, maybe every single subatomic particle, how long time is that? How many times have i died, how much have I suffered? I was issuing human stupidity at this point too, how your social actions affect yourself in your next life for instance, what happens if you make love to yourself versus what happens if you fight yourself. Mankind, what a place for suffering, if i just could pull the plug and jump out this mad circus. I couldn't stop it, the idea grew in my mind, since humanity is a selfpreserving expansionistic creature, i couldn't fight myself. I felt some kind of weakness nobody could feel. Some kind of weakness I don't have now. Anyway that was a pretty stupid theory but it's still fun to think about, encourages yourself to be "a good being" and don't hit your brother. I was thinking about building a religion based on it too Now pointing at the weakness of myself at that point made me realize that a human is a complex state machine. Troughout your life you will pass between two states mainly, yourself as a selfcentristic being and the contrapositive being absorbed by your environment. When you come to the point "the lowest point of your life" where everything feels meaningless you can gain strength in identifying yourself. Most loose the point in this mainly because they want to fall back into the environment they've come from. You should know what i'm talking about, people who feel low regain their strength and return back. Some become religious, some loose their faith in them, some become a totally different person, some decide to die (good choise if you ask me) it's nothing different from the others, just that you decide what is best for you. Most of the time they STOP judging themself and trying to identify themselves. I didn't do that, but instead i felt like this is where i should be. I was certain this was the most efficient point of monitoring myself, my being as human, i regained my strength without jumping off the dead spot. I learned how to accept my lonelyness, the nature of humanity, the nature of stupidity, the nature of knowledge, the very universe. You might not get my point now again (I can see this from this distance) I'm not trying to state that i know something nobody else knows. I'm not bringing up new knowledge, i'm dismissing knowledge, I don't need knowledge to understand myself and in second, understand what universe is all about. And suddenly you can see things clear, suddenly you begin to know what is going to happen sooner or later. I am thinking of this as a result of contradiction: If i know something that i possibly can't, due to the result of not being able to know anything at all, i'm contradicting reality, I become omniscient, omnipotent, I will exit this universe, I will wake up this dream, I will be free from my own enslavement. I'm just becoming more and more familiar with the trigger i found.

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! CRAZY MAN if that's what you think of me, you'd think i wouldn't care, that i wouldn't care that i can't explain. Well what I have been doing for most of the time? Haven't I been trying to get someone to understand me? Haven't I tried to get someone to notice me? I'm >< this close to know something that i absolutely impossible, i'm this close to become the new god of this universe and i'm hesitating?

I do own the very fear i've encapsulated maybe trillions of years ago or just a week, but I need to be certain what i am doing, so that i just don't do it wrong or i'll start it all over again (you wouldn't want that to happen now that we come this far, the twentyfirst century you know) Come on! I know there must be someone who must be interested! QWESTION me and i'll have answers!



Now before you go to sleep again, you wonder what happens next day. Sometimes you feel bored and wish you were somewhere else, I know where even if you don't know.

[simonm]

Well thanks for going to such lengths to make your point clear to me!

Seriously though, I think I do understand (most) of what you're getting at now.

If i know something that i possibly can't, due to the result of not being able to know anything at all, i'm contradicting reality, I become omniscient, omnipotent, I will exit this universe, I will wake up this dream, I will be free from my own enslavement. I'm just becoming more and more familiar with the trigger i found.

What you are saying here reminds me of what Socrates said (something like): 'The only thing we can know is that we know nothing'. I don't know whether Socrates really knew it and achieved freedom from himself but it is an interesting notion.

I do believe that we are enslaved by our own minds and that our minds interpret incomming information in a way that re-inforces our peception of reality and perhaps this is the same point you are making.

[kedaman]

Alright Simon

I do believe that we are enslaved by our own minds and that our minds interpret incomming information in a way that re-inforces our peception of reality and perhaps this is the same point you are making.

I feel both good and bad for this, for you, because i'm glad you understand me and even adopt my theories, or probably somone else Socrates maybe knew about this also but might never mentioned it, or is it me again then? It's so obvious that:

'The only thing we can know is that we know nothing'

That's the point, the contradiction, the fact that i'm not accepting it (yet) makes it possible for me to think it's impossible and so on... And the fact that nobody yet (or what am i really saying?) has accepted it out of i don't know how many centillion sentient beings (or is it just me?) for how many cumulatively centiollion milleniums makes it seem impossible to do it at all. Or is it really?

In near future, theyre going to get me brainwashed, my brains robbed from all crap, (because of me ordering to do it) and having me taught this over again, until i know this is how it is, this is what i am. I might not even then accept this. There going to be generations and generations again with brainwashed humans, theyre going to do tests, brainwave matrix controlling devices, theres going to be fast fast fast evolution in a new way of thinking, not biologically but digitally enhancing my capabilities of thinking singleminded and to concentrate on this project. Humanity wont be itself, it will evolve into a i don't know what to call it... The big huge database of millions of the best computers processing the thinking of accepting the contradiction. And is that even enough? It has to be because who am i without my environment? I'm vanishing into nothing. Is that the way? Complete extermination of the human race? Then give me time to think, give me someone who knows what i'm doing, thinking, give me someone who can qwestion me and say where i went wrong, but don't give someone to tell me what reality is.

I feel bad because I expect more interest in the issue, i feel there has to be some big argument going on for this to get anywhere, i feel like you need to hit me to see if i fall to the ground or stay intact.

Maybe it's just either too selfevidently stupid that nobody gets anything or rolls their eyes to achieve what is best for them, but in fact is a defense mechanism that is induced by the fear inside of us or maybe it's just such a selfevident paradox that it seems ridiculous to even try to accept it. Maybe we need more evidence for it? How do you find evidence for a paradox? I don't know, I don't know but we might find similarities in other issues, something that always points to this contradiction and then somehow can tie together a solid proof that this reality doesn't exist. That this is just logically impossible.

[simonm]

I'm not going to argue with you, as you know, I already believe that reality is subjective.

One thought though: Surely there is something we all know: 'I think therefore I am'. This is something at least (even if it isn't much).

I believe we define reality using the tool of 'categorisation'. We put everything into categories by a process of descrimination. We observe simularities and differences based on a what we consider to be significant. What is or what isn't significant is based on our value system (what's important or unimportant to us).
Therefore it is conceivable that each being sees the world differently. Infact, the value system of the individual shapes the way (and what) they see in reality.

[Skeen]

http://www.dumblaws.com

[chenko]

http://www.dumblaws.com/countries/england.html

Hereford
You may not shoot a Welsh person on Sunday with a longbow in the Cathedral Close.

DAMN!! I wondered why them coppers would follow me into the Cathedral carrying my log bow

[kedaman]

To the implicit suggestion of Dumblaws, I thank no thanks because i'm serious. Doesn't mean this isn't fun to think about either

I'm not going to argue with you, as you know, I already believe that reality is subjective.

One thought though: Surely there is something we all know: 'I think therefore I am'. This is something at least (even if it isn't much).

I believe we define reality using the tool of 'categorisation'. We put everything into categories by a process of descrimination. We observe simularities and differences based on a what we consider to be significant. What is or what isn't significant is based on our value system (what's important or unimportant to us).
Therefore it is conceivable that each being sees the world differently. Infact, the value system of the individual shapes the way (and what) they see in reality.

Real! This word is my favourite word What is real? Ambigous? YES! You said, and I knew you would (because you had earlier) back me up with the subjective reality. It's real isn't it? but it's not. "I think therefore I am" will work everywhere but in our subjective reality it fails, that is this is actually false, I do not exist, not because i think but because existance is defined for the subjective reality in which I happen not to belong to, the issue that makes scientist look at me with rolling eyes and say "it's self evident" (btw how can a scientist say that?) is the fact that I exist. It's wrong, it doesn't co-operate with any science, Quantum or not. Hence, and If there isn't a name for it, I'd like to name it, I introduced the hierarchy of realities you can extrapolate using the dream concept. I've looked it up, that the idea that universe, the subjective reality is your own imagination, is named Solipsism:
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/solipsis.htm
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/8171/solipsism.htm (simpler explanation)
BTW I haven't read but some of the first paragraphs of the earlier link, (the serious academic one) and then decided not to read in fear i would intercept something new and then smudge my theories (they are purely mine yet, I did conclude what Descartes did to face Solipsism)
Anyways the issue I bringed up is of course the nature of this reality, how it is contradicting everything, why it is and what solution there is to this issue. this is not the issue on the academic page above, IF ANYONE FINDS ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO IT, LET ME FOR GOD SAKE KNOW! I'm dead serious about it. If dead serious doesn't sound like anything for those who actually understood what i've been babbling about, then i have no words for you Now let's finally step one step up on the reality ladder i've built up for us, we find ourself in the source to this universe, objective reality, which by our minds got projected in our subreality, (when i use the pronouns like this, I don't care, i talk about everyone of us because i'm that kind of person, whether I use I, We, You or why not even It) Here in this reality "I think therefore I am" will work again, on the same basis as in our earlier reality, it's recursive, and it's not endless, thank god is it not because then there wouldn't be anything to project subrealities from. Assuming that Reality doesn't need to be singular, I mean that there can be multiple ones, i'm alternating most of philosophy really?, that there is no consistency between realities which makes statements like "I think therefore I am" fail, under all but the full set of reality hierachy tree. Or if you want to see it the other way, the full set realities in contrast to classical reality, there are inconsistencies.

On your third paragraph I agree, (this is about the issue on the Academic page) and am openminded to (as always I am because i'm that kind of person, who don't want to dismiss all others (like Solipsists)).(I wonder how you Simon tie this and subjectivity together?) I wanted to build the reality tree for all of us, maybe i'm just afraid to know the truth, the fear inside me tells me what to do, but contrapositively it's seems "likely" that a reality as a reflection of it's objective reality has multiple "souls" our "minds" as we call ourselves. Who would come up with such an idea, is it possible for an ultimately lonesome being to do that? I want to believe, deeply I want to believe that this is how it is, that we are connected hierarchially with a common destiny, in a Reality common to all of us.

If you don't find a way to tie subjectivity and the concept of "we" would you join my way of solving solipsism?

[simonm]

I have heard of Solipsism before and read some things about them (nothing particularly favourable) but I think I need more time to digest what they are saying.
Apparently, the solipsists in ancient greece were quite an arrogant bunch who thought that there wasn't any point trying to learn anything new.
Even if reality is subjective and just a projection from oneself, isn't it worth exploring these depths? Even if you can't discover 'objective' knowledge, you can discover self knowledge.

I need to go away and read those websites when I get a chance (quite busy at the moment).