deaf, indifferent to cuisine, calloused to touch, etc. A witness is a
weak argument in many cases before the law. What one hears may be
filtered by ignorance, drugs, bias or other confused residue of
thinking/perception patterns. All human knowledge is subject to error-
including reason, math and physics, etc. C'est la vie!
On Apr 28, 7:17 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
wrote:
> Heh I'm going to be a little naughty now.
>
> Why is it reaonable to use the our senses as the foundation of a
> belief system that models our reality?
>
> If the only way to measure what your reality is, is via your senses,
> then it seems reasonable to me to find other ways to show that our
> senses do sense what our reality is.
>
> A fly's visual senses would render a flies world in multiple images.
> Does the fly 'view' reality in the real way or do we?
>
> We are cabaple of only experianceing 4 dimensions, are there more?
>
> Put more simply, what aspects of our reality do we miss out on for
> lack of senses to sense?
>
> On the surface I belive you are correct, to say that you do not reject
> the possibility that the ghost might in fact be a ghost, and that you
> put the likelihood very low on my list of probable explanations. This
> I can only assume is because you have had no senseary experiance of
> ghosts?
>
> No doubt if you saw ghosts everywhere you would change your mind, this
> is human nature, and honestly I'm not ragging you on it. The point
> here is really one of higlighing once again that we all have some
> belifes based on faith, even if such faith is tempeed with a modicum
> of reason.
>
> There is a link between faith and reason and the two are not mutualy
> exclusive.
>
> On Apr 28, 12:32 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > First, let me preface my comment by saying that I was being facetious about
> > only believing my senses. I do believe that there are things out there that
> > are as yet unexplained (note that I didn't say things that can't be
> > explained).
>
> > Science has yet to come up with a truly consistent theory that explains all
> > aspects of reality. However, it does seem reasonable to use the our senses
> > as the foundation of a belief system that models our reality.
>
> > I guess that what I'm trying to say is that while some may look into a cloud
> > of mist and see a ghost, I would tend to believe that the ghost is just
> > water droplets being stirred around by the wind. I don't entirely reject the
> > possibility that the ghost might in fact be a ghost. I just put the
> > likelihood very low on my list of probable explanations.
>
> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Ash <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Fair enough, I don't feel much into reading about gnosis at this time
> > > either! :) It was just a reference and one I derive little sense of
> > > authority from in this case. It took me a while to get my thoughts collected
> > > in just shabby form here but here it is for consideration, all IMO in
> > > general.
>
> > > I can relate to feeling and thinking that way myself, however there are
> > > aspects of materialism that are just unavailable to today's minds without
> > > passing through some serious mind benders. In principle I do agree, but only
> > > on the grounds that the potential depth of interconnections in our universe
> > > should allow a linkage between any arbitrary thing and another. As a
> > > principle of philosophy it could also be very beneficial to keep one's head
> > > 'tethered', very practical and utilitarian. At times much of what I hear
> > > sounds like five nines of BS, but that one thousandth of intuitive capacity
> > > can read in real time what would take a very long time indeed to fully
> > > expose in subordinate intuitive terms (or 'hard' sciences). That doesn't
> > > mean it is an unworthy undertaking, but the opposite, very laborious but
> > > even more important.
>
> > > There is an idea in various forms (out in the wild) which explains that the
> > > varying sciences, arts and philosophies are not at odds as one would suppose
> > > from studying them or being taught. As mental models or exercises to prepare
> > > mental perception they are schools and arts to focus and approach problems
> > > or questions. As imperfect representations of fact or truth they are tools
> > > of navigating information and knowledge, landmarks, references. By
> > > recombining approaches in various fields you could eventually reach
> > > propositions and explanations in many others refining, reinforcing,
> > > undermining. This includes the normal senses, and the institutionalization
> > > of perception by our genetic makeup. I think it applies to all the domains
> > > of experience and inquiry that can pass through our minds and can unlock
> > > vast potential for free association of transmuting symbols. With the aim of
> > > building better tools to comprehend and master what and where we are I
> > > invite you to consider the (perhaps) one thousandth of valuable experiential
> > > contributions that science is just beginning to explain. Just the potential
> > > contributions, not the dogmas or interpretations. If for nothing else,
> > > science without imagination is dead in the water, but I believe it will take
> > > many millennia for science to make religion (or better the spiritual aspect)
> > > obsolete. I think this would be an amazing Renaissance time for all areas of
> > > human experience.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment