I could very well make the argument that human intellect is the only arbiter of reality, but I won't do so for this discussion.

Rather, I am making the proposition that the intellect is the supreme arbiter Of reality.

Therefore, only intellectually deducible or measurable quantities can be acceptable as real or having any impact on our reality.

In this case, god, spirits, independent self, etc, do not exist on our reality.

Please, no......


Dont give Deepsight an avenue to excitedly expose his vocabulary with his verbose sophistry that makes one to scratch his head....abeg...

Logicboy03: Please, no......


Dont give Deepsight an avenue to excitedly expose his vocabulary with his verbose sophistry that makes one to scratch his head....abeg..

Lol.
According to Deepsight, in the beginning was the word, then the word went out and begat it's own kind, then the words grew into big words, and the big words became God, and the word cam from the infinite mind of Deepsight.

So there you have it.
Deepsight is creator of the God of the universe.

@ plaetton: I disagree. Reality exists as itself and doesn't require humans to arbitrate it. Whether or not you arbitrate or whether such arbitrations are right or wrong, reality exists as it always has till certain conditions end it. Human intellect deciphers reality. Saying arbitrate makes it seem like humans choose what and what isn't reality: that can only be true figuratively.

Uyi Iredia: @ plaetton: I disagree. Reality exists as itself and doesn't require humans to arbitrate it. Whether or not you arbitrate or whether such arbitrations are right or wrong, reality exists as it always has till certain conditions end it. Human intellect deciphers reality. Saying arbitrate makes it seem like humans choose what and what isn't reality: that can only be true figuratively.

How does reality exist if there is nothing to give it definition?
To whom does it exists then?

plaetton:

How does reality exist if there is nothing to give it definition?
To whom does it exists then?

The sciences of astrophysics and biology have and are giving answers in that direction. Recall the Big Bang and evolutionary theory.


My reply to you second question is: No one save 'itself'.

Reality exists. Nothing more and nothing less. With or without people who 'know' it existence doesn't make it non-extant. Your question hints at solipsism where the absurdity was proposed that if say, I, Iredia, dies,; then the universe no longer exists because there is no me to observe it.

Actually sir, my question was whether the intellect was the supreme arbiter of reality.
In other words, do we perceive and decipher reality through any other means other than through intellectual constructs?

Not whether reality exists or not.

Uyi Iredia: @ plaetton: I disagree. Reality exists as itself and doesn't require humans to arbitrate it. Whether or not you arbitrate or whether such arbitrations are right or wrong, reality exists as it always has till certain conditions end it. Human intellect deciphers reality. Saying arbitrate makes it seem like humans choose what and what isn't reality: that can only be true figuratively.

I agree.


Though our views might be subjective, it doesn't change reality's objectivity. We might lie to ourselves, but we cannot change the truth.

plaetton: Actually sir, my question was whether the intellect was the supreme arbiter of reality.
In other words, do we perceive and decipher reality through any other means other than through intellectual constructs?

Not whether reality exists or not.

is reality limited only to the physical and intellectual? Are there other means of perceptions that surpass the intellect? Do you believe in intuition? Do you know of spiritual perception?


Does the fact of extra-physical sensing not imply an extra-physical aspect of our universe?

This is the problem with debating with you Josh. You make fantastic leaps from the realms of fantasy and myth into reality, and then you question why no else agrees with you.

What , for example, are the facts of extra- physical sensing that you are referring to?

What the the hell is spiritual perception?
Pls pls, none of that bible school bullshyt here.

I am actually looking forward to an informative and robust discussion, not the wishy washy whoppers you are trying to serve.

plaetton: This is the problem with debating with you Josh. You makes fantastic leaps from the realms of fantasy and myth into reality and then you question why no else agrees with you.

What , for example, are the facts of extra- sensory sensing that you are referring to?

What the the hell is spiritual perception?
Pls pls, none of that bible school bullshyts here.

I am actually looking forward to an informative and robust discussion, not the wishy washy whoppers you are trying to serve.

you should have simply answered the questions I posed instead of deftly saying all these sir. Do you believe in intuition?
Or are you now saying that intuition does not exist? Is unreal?

Joshthefirst: you should have simply answered the questions I posed instead of deftly saying all these sir. Do you believe in intuition?
Or are you now saying that intuition does not exist? Is unreal?

You just can't seem to separate Belief and reality.
A belief can only be local to an individual. Reality is reality to everyone.
For example, a belief in Angels is local only to you and your religious friends, whereas, gravity is universally real to everyone.

So please, lets keep this discussion within the confines of universally accepted reality.

plaetton:

You just can't seem to separate Belief and reality.
A belief can only be local to an individual. Reality is reality to everyone.
For example, a belief in Angels is local only to you and your religious friends, whereas, gravity is universally real to everyone.

So please, lets keep this discussion within the confines of universally accepted reality.

what is this? I ask you a simple question and you're saying what I don't know. Do you believe in intuition? A yes or no is enough.

No is no room in my brain for belief

Well I honestly do not know how you can raise such a question haven previously declared that mind only sees that which it has been conditioned to see, and thus cannot be trusted to disclose objective truth.

Deep Sight:
Well I honestly do not know how you can raise such a question haven previously declared that mind only sees that which it has been conditioned to see, and thus cannot be trusted to disclose objective truth.

Deep Sight:
Well I honestly do not know how you can raise such a question haven previously declared that mind only sees that which it has been conditioned to see, and thus cannot be trusted to disclose objective truth.

The bolded is partially true, and we can discuss that further along the way.
But first, is the mind the intellectual center, or is the mind the intellect?

plaetton: No is no room in my brain for belief

lol. See how despecable you are. I asked a simple question that has debunked all your english on this thread and you choose to be shady and not answer it. Toh. Wetin man go do. I will simply keep repeating the simple question until someone comes to rescue you with more shady english.


Simple question: Do you believe in intuition? A yes or no answer will suffice.

plaetton:

The bolded is partially true, and we can discuss that further along the way.

And if that is the case then your question and assertion are dead on arrival as the intellect will only apprehend that which it has been conditioned to apprehend and as such can never be any useful "arbiter" of any reality human or otherwise.

But first, is the mind the intellectual center, or is the mind the intellect?

Mind is the core essence of being. When something is said to be a being, it is because it is a living thing with the properties of perception which enable it to apprehend its environment and its sense of self. That innate property is what mind is and it is the core faculty of being. The intellect is a component or subset of mind - or better put, it is merely one capacity or capability of mind - the capacity to reason. If as you said previously, mind has no objective truths of its own but only apprehends what it is conditioned to, then you cannot say that the intellect is the supreme arbiter of reality because it would only decipher what it is conditioned to decipher. Not reality and not even human reality. Simple.

Now I will also go further to say that if this intellect is the supreme arbiter of our reality as you say, there are many barbaric but strictly rational and efficient lines of reasoning that should find currency in the administration of human affairs. However this is not the case because there are other faculties of mind at play. One of them is conscience. Another is empathy. Yet another is passion. Yet others are instinct and intuition. These things are not intellectual.

And I would very much like to see you dismiss the existence of instinct and intuition. Start with babies and breast feeding. An evolutionary conundrum, by the way.

plaetton: Actually sir, my question was whether the intellect was the supreme arbiter of reality.
In other words, do we perceive and decipher reality through any other means other than through intellectual constructs?

Not whether reality exists or not.

Okay. Still, I insist your use of the use of the word arbiter is misleading. The human intellect is the ONLY, and only supreme means of deciphering reality.