On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 7:17 AM, leerevdouglas@googlemail.com <lee@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
If you had no sensory input what would you base your reality on?
I think this is what science and technology are all about. Confirming and extending our understanding of what it is that we sense.
I doubt it. I would say that a fly internalizes the interpretation of his senses less than most people I know. Note that I didn't say ALL people. Take my ex for instance... No, really, TAKE MY EX.
Not really. It's more because there is no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of a metaphysical universe. But, there are more likely explanations that don't rely on a metaphysical universe and I choose those explanations because they add substance to the foundations of my belief system rather than detract from it.
Actually, if I saw ghosts everywhere I'd be looking for the most reasonable explanation I could find. If that led to a metaphysical universe that wasn't within my belief system then I would have to tear my belief system down and start from scratch. Anything that would require that kind of catastrophic reevaluation would have to be VERY substantive.
I believe that I have already pointed out that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.
The difference between the two is that reason has constraints that faith does not. There is no 'link' between the two other than the fact that they are different methodologies for arriving at a conclusion.
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 you had no sensory input what would you base your reality on?
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.
I think this is what science and technology are all about. Confirming and extending our understanding of what it is that we sense.
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?
I doubt it. I would say that a fly internalizes the interpretation of his senses less than most people I know. Note that I didn't say ALL people. Take my ex for instance... No, really, TAKE MY EX.
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?
Not really. It's more because there is no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of a metaphysical universe. But, there are more likely explanations that don't rely on a metaphysical universe and I choose those explanations because they add substance to the foundations of my belief system rather than detract from it.
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.
Actually, if I saw ghosts everywhere I'd be looking for the most reasonable explanation I could find. If that led to a metaphysical universe that wasn't within my belief system then I would have to tear my belief system down and start from scratch. Anything that would require that kind of catastrophic reevaluation would have to be VERY substantive.
There is a link between faith and reason and the two are not mutualy
exclusive.
I believe that I have already pointed out that faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.
The difference between the two is that reason has constraints that faith does not. There is no 'link' between the two other than the fact that they are different methodologies for arriving at a conclusion.
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.
>
>
>
> > human experience.- Hide quoted text -> 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
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment