Which brings me back to a question that I've asked a couple of times over the last few weeks, with no takers: what is more important, the [subjective] realisation or the actuality of reality?
Sagan and anyone who care toreply
by jw 111 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Qcmbr
There are several things I'm mulling over:
1/ Consciousness(the ability to choose?) is a great mystery - I could agree totally with evolution (unconscious causation) IF life were only expressed as self replicating nano bots and no more (no matter how complex it organised itself to) - the mechanism would be absolutely fine however, life has an extra dimension to it unexplained for me by pure process - the ability to make decisions based not upon mechanical predetermination (drop a rock out of a window and it lands based purely on mechanical predetermination, drop a cat out and it will make decisions on the way down that would make the exact result in question until after the event.)
2/ Chaos does not seem able to organise beyond a certain level (given enough energy we get recognisable structures such as rock layers, stars, oxygen and so on) however, the continued addition of energy seems to be detrimental to structures thus formed so stopping them getting more organised (energy destroys order around an equilibrium point.) Mountains are built but then are destroyed, stars fire up but then burn out and so on.. Life seems altogether different to self-ordered chaos in that it is organised at a cost of focused energy rather than random excitation. Life is able to store and release energy as it chooses.
3/ Perception is based upon an approximation of all the information available to us (we see only part of the spectrum, we hear part of the availale sound frequencies, our focus is not microsopic nor telescopic etc..) and so we never have all the information upon which to make decisions - everything is an act of faith/belief/hope based on our best guess from what we perceive. From this position all dogmatic assertions fall apart - even many repeatable 'facts' fall apart as absolute truths (Newtonian physics is wrong from some points of reference but good enough to make day to day decisions.) We therefore perceive an unimaginable tiny fraction of the information and yet use this to extrapolate the nature of everything - the arrogance of life:) We have no basis but our best guess that everything must have a beginning (hence the debate about the start of 'God' / the universe / consciousness etc.. Cause and effect may not be the overriding law of the universe (it wouldn't be if this was a computer simulation for example - in that scenario start and beginning are pointless as nothing in the simulation would give a point of real reference for the simulations real start.)
4/ Points of reference seem to alter basic laws - if an intelligence could travel at the speed of light the universe would run totally differently.
I don't accept the uncaused universe because from my point of reference it doesn't make sense. The fact we can even debate this argues more for the supremacy of intelligence over mechanical process in my opinion. I don't find it possible that life can be engendered by base chemicals acting unconsciously - though many would argue that alcohol had a great role in their conception:). -
Narkissos
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/113141/1979842/post.ashx#1979842
(I know AuldSoul, they've kept you pretty busy, but if you love semantics you have a serious question to deal with there...)
As to the univocity or plurivocity of "knowing"... Can we know our own self as we know the distance from the Earth to the Moon? Such kinds of "knowledge" are neither entirely the same not entirely different I guess.
I hate debates around the existence of God -- endlessly leaping over the question, "the existence of what?"
I prefer a full-fledged philosophical discussion around what is "being," or "reality," or a full-fledged theological discussion about what is "God". Whether they ultimately lead to the same "light" or lose themselves in darkness they are both interesting paths to tread on.
-
LittleToe
Hence my last question...
-
Narkissos
Ross,
When you're finished with Barth, you might try Heidegger...
-
LittleToe
B*st*rd...
...ya just know I'm gonna, doncha?!!!
-
peacefulpete
Maybe no one ever told you about thought exercises and their value for comprehension beyond their narrow confines. I will assume that is the case. In the thought exercise I presented, I stipulated that only one man ever felt a bee sting. For that man to KNOW what a bee sting feels like and to KNOW that bees can sting only required that one singular event. It did not require confirmation or analysis. That hypothetical man's experience served to garner him knowledge no one else in that hypothetical world had. He didn't only "believe" bees sting and that it hurts, he wasn't merely "firmly convicted" that bees sting and it hurts, he "knew" that to be a fact, whether anyone ever independently confirmed it or not.
I understand the value as well as the misuse of thought exercises. Why does your thought exercise loose its value if we appropriately substitute "invisible purple unique to the universe creature" for "bee"? It looses its impact precisely because it more accurately illustrates the matter. As LT just remarked we as a society would rightly not highly value that man's interpretation/explanation of experience because of its uniqueness. You seem to be confusing the establishment of reality with the experience of it. Its true that people may and do deny an unpleasant or pleasant reality until its hits them close to home. This experience and subsequent acceptance of otherwise established reality does not make the reality more real, though the person may feel it has become more real.
Now to suggest that without the previous establishment of reality on the part of others through some sort of scientific approach, a person's interpretation of an experience ought be recognized as an equal approach to establishing reality is a mistake.
As I said if a society accepted the testimony of one man's interpreation of an experience as a means to establish reality, like we would be doing if we accepted the invisible,purple unique creature story, we would soon have volumes of new and otherwise unvarifiable invisible creatures. This is unfortunately exactly why billions of people accept as reality god/gods, demons and spooks of all types and colors, we have volumes of them.
These debates are so frustrating because the scientifically minded person's love of precision is met with the philosophers love of verbal ambiguity.
Language is not failing us, we have words to use that we could agree to define, but our methodologies toward establishing reality are incompatible.
-
press any key
Littletoe - what is more important our perceptions or the real world going on around us (is that your real question)?
imho, or should I say imor (in my own reality)
what is reality - your own reality is whatever you choose it to be, this is important to individuals, in most cases more important than the real reality
however the real world is what decides whether you die of something nasty dispite refusing to recognise the symptoms
the problem is that reality can be a harsh lens to look through, it can also be a bit elusive
so the real reality is more important, although noone knows what it is
cheers
qcmbr - perhaps if you knew the cat better you would be able to work it out, cause and effect - and also mountains eroding and stars exploding arent chaos conquering order, they are part of the order
cheerio
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Which brings me back to a question that I've asked a couple of times over the last few weeks, with no takers: what is more important, the [subjective] realisation or the actuality of reality?
I refereth thee to the authority of the sacred writ (in so much as I just wrote it in my city which is in actuality named after a saint):
"22 You behold that [his] realisation worked along with the actuality of reality and by this actuality [his] realisation was perfected......24 You see that a man is to declare knowledge by actuality of reality and not by realisation alone." YETI 2:22,24
In all seriousness, I do agree with PP on the importance of cross checking our perceptions with what we hold to be the concrete objective reality....and I'm "sure" () that the scientific method is the best approach.
-
AuldSoul
Narkissos: Or, tu put it differently: for God's "life" to count as a possible scientific cause for phenomenal ("carbon-based") life, it must (1) be moved from the metaphorical realm to the phenomenal one (iow, become an observable object, descriptible as "non-carbon-based life") and then (2) be inscribed in a possible causal relation to "carbon-based life".
I find this the essence of your point. I agree 100%. If I were looking for a "scientific" cause this is exactly what I would have to do. However, I only have to do this if I am attempting to prove (scientifically) the cause for phenomenal life.
I have repeatedly said this is not possible. Although I did not put it in theterms you did, it was for the same reasons you stated. In the scientifically accepted version of what constitutes "observable" (which, observation is in itself a subjective experiential exercise) I do not believe God can be observed. Therefore, God cannot be proven to exist through application of the Scientific Method.
My point is, there is no burden of proof required for me to know what a bee sting feels like, and to state with certainty of knowledge (as opposed to "belief" or "conviction") that bees sting. The the fact that there is no burden of proof accompanying my personal knowledge arising from my experience is not dependent on the number of people who have been stung by bees (which could be reduced to only myself) nor on the degree of independent confirmation or analysis (which can be reduced to zero).
My personal knowledge of a bee sting, even if I were the only one ever to experience it, would not be metaphorical or poetic. Although, the only descriptions I could muster to explain the experience to someone who had never experienced it would be metaphorical. In fact, there are people who have never been stung by bees and who have nothing but metaphorical descriptions of the experience to go on, that nonetheless believe certain things about bee stings that they do not know to be true. There are certain aspects of the experience that are forever off limits (technically) from the knowledge of anyone who has not shared the experience, firsthand.
I haven't seen where anyone has addressed this thought exercise head-on solely on its merits, but I believe it demonstrate conclusively the possibility of independently acquired knowledge which carries no burden of proof prior to being regarded as knowledge—not in the metaphorical sense.
There are more means to "observe" (experience) reality than the Scientific Method allows for, that doesn't make science bad, it makes science GREAT for what science does. But, in my opinion, science should not impose its own limitations on the human experience. Insisting that all experiential knowledge be proven is a ridiculous notion, and I believe my thought experiment proves it to be such.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul