If you say one thing and then retract and say another, it is normal
then in a place such as this to get pulled up about it, isn't it?
Anyway the main concern here is that I am clear in what you are trying
to tell me. Hence I will ask questions designed to clarify for my
little head exaclty (if possible) what it is you are trying to get
accross to me.
In return I must endeavour to do the same for you.
In this litle bit of to-ing and -fro-ing between us I have been trying
to get you see a certian point, it did look to me that you have it
when you say.
'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.'
To my eyes this looks very much like you are admiting that there are
some things in which you belive without emprical evidance. When you
say you'll not discount that may there exist things that our senses
cannot sense, nor our sciences at this moment cannot measure, yet you
choose to belive A over B, you are engaging in this type of belife.
You also offer a more than valid reason for this choice, but it still
boils down to because this is what I belive.
If you want to belive in the same manor as me, why I'll be delighted,
but I know that you have just blown a gasget here. I would ask why
though, am I really that enfuryating?
On Apr 28, 8:16 pm, Chuck Bowling <aardvarkstudio.chu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Why do you work so hard to try and force me to recant every statement I've
> ever made?
>
> If it's that important to you then yes. I was wrong. Reality doesn't exist
> if that's what you believe. If you don't believe that then reality does
> exist. If you believe that ghosts exist then so do I. If you believe that
> ketchup exists solely for the purpose of decorating vanilla ice cream then
> so do I. Thanks for changing my worldview. I'm forever in your debt.
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:23 AM, leerevdoug...@googlemail.com <
>
>
>
> l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> > > If you had no sensory input what would you base your reality on?
>
> > In such a case how would you even be sure that you existed? No sight,
> > no touch, no hearing, no smell. A very hard job indeed, you would
> > live entirly in a world of your making.
>
> > > I think this is what science and technology are all about. Confirming and
> > > extending our understanding of what it is that we sense.
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Indeed, I totaly get where you are at on this. I think we all do
> > this, it is in fact my point.
>
> > However as you have said you do not discount the idea that because we
> > can't sense it, it does not exist? Ahhh heheh but you did say that
> > earler, a retraction then?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > That is good to know. However can you see any diferance in that mode
> > of thought and the mode of thought employed by a beliver in ghosts,
> > who is more likely to look at the metaphysical reason first?
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Heheh yeah perhaps, but I would say that faith not tempered with some
> > reason is not faith but stupidity myself.
>
> > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment