Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you are correct in saying that science addresses only the superficial, and never the "inner essence" . Thus you are saying you have chosen to limit yourself to the superficial.
You added the word 'superficial' which has a connotation of trivial. I used words like "outer" or "external" or "appearance" (in the Kantian sense). People spend their entire careers studying Kant; it's hard to capture his ideas in a 30 second soundbite, but I'll try. He refers to his core idea as a "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy and science (his goal was to make Metaphysics a science by giving it a self-evidence logical grounding). Copernicus changed our way of thinking about the universe from geocentric to heliocentric. Thus Copernicus pointed out that, although the sun appears to us to move across the sky, it is really us - the observers - who are moving, relative to the sun. Naïve Realists believe that we simply see Reality directly. Idealists, like Bishop Berkeley, insisted that the "external world" was really just a creation of our minds (ultimately rooted in the mind of God, thus when the tree falls in the forest, it is never true that "nobody" sees it because God is always there and sees everything).
Kant's "Copernican revolution" was to realize that what we call "external objects" were, in fact, subjectively created "appearances" (phenomena) rooted in an unseen Reality (Noumena or "things-in-themselves"). This notion of "appearances" does not imply that there is anything "trivial" about them. What we call "objective reality" or the "external world" is the world as it appears to us. This is a subtle idea that is easily misunderstood, and is generally characterized incorrectly in popular culture. Kant is not saying that the noumenal realm of "things-in-themselves" is the objective reality. No, he is saying that the objective world is the world of appearances. Of the noumenal realm we can say nothing at all without falling into error. We can't say that the noumenal realm is objectively real because the concept of "objectivity" is, itself, phenomenal, not noumenal. One might be reminded here of the koans of Zen Buddhism. The basic structures of logic and experience force us to perceive objective reality situated in time and space because time and space are the logical conditions for the possibility of any perception of an objective reality at all. (BTW: This notion of "the conditions for the possibility of" is the Kantian root of the word "transcendental" which nowadays gets used by lots of people in lots of totally different ways.)
Anyway, objective reality is not superficial. It is phenomenally real, even thought it is "transcendentally ideal." The objective world is, indeed, the very "essence" of "reality" because without it there would be no "reality" in any sense that we could ever comprehend or care about, but the logical preconditions for the possibility of "reality" are rooted in a realm that is not "objectively real" because it is, itself, the conditions for the possibly of "objective reality" in the first place. So there you are. You are welcome to put that in your hat and smoke it.
Quote:
...you seem to be saying the inner essence does not matter, only the superficial. curious.
Curious indeed. I've blabbered more about qualia in these threads than probably anything else. Probably enough to make people nauseous by now. It would seem that the "inner essence" matters a lot to me. But, BTW, the qualia are still phenomenal in the Kantian sense. I was too breezy when I made some offhand remark about qualia being "noumenal"; I was trying to evoke an idea that, technically, is just too difficult to toss out there so casually. I think I was really trying to sandwich the ontological status of qualia somewhere between the noumenal realm and the phenomenal realm of objective reality. I might try this: qualia are the "mechanisms" by which the noumenal becomes phenomenal, which is why they have the weird status of being both "subjective" and "objective" (they are, shall we say, "ground zero" of the "dual" in my "dual-aspect" theory).
Quote:
Never, even in principle, can science say anything about the essence or inner reality of anything which is deeper.[/b]
I disagree. So long as physics consists of theories that only address the objective/measurable aspects of Reality, then it can't get at the inner essence of things. But I'm not convinced that physics has to remain forever in this state. In some other threads I have roughly outlined some ways in which a future "neo-quantum theory" might get a grip on qualia. Some of you might vaguely remember I suggested that, using the "correlates of consciousness," we might be able to create a "qualitative map" which, then, could be integrated into QM in a fundamental way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
...it's like there are many parts of yourself holding very different views , that are sort of arguing with each other and in disagreement. how would you describe those different parts of yourself? what is the conflict and why don't they agree?
I think you have this perception because you tend to cherry-pick my statements looking for ways to support your own arguments and, given this focus, tend not to really hear what I'm saying. But, to be fair, some of it probably also stems from the nature of what I'm doing here in these treads. These posts are sorta like "diary entries" for me, which is to say, stream of consciousness blabbering about what's on my mind at a given time. In most cases I don't really know what I'm trying to say until I say it, and then sometimes I have to go back and figure out what the heck I just said. This leaves plenty of room for potential inconsistencies although, at the moment, I'm not actually aware of any blatant inconsistencies. If there are some, hopefully ya'll will point them out.
Quote:
if the truth is stranger and more interesting
then how are you going to explore it
if you only address the superficial, and ignore or exclude your investigation of the inner essence?
again....why not thoroughly investigate and explore both?
I am exploring both. I think, perhaps, you just don't quite comprehend what I've been saying in some cases. And it's probably not entirely your fault. As I said these stream of consciousness "diary entries" are probably not as clear, concise, and consistent as they could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
so....you now see your pencil from an earlier post expressing its wants for which type of toilet paper to buy?
and the pencil on your table....gave life to itself?
My recent explanation for why houses don't self-organize should work for pencils as well.
...
This notion of "appearances" does not imply that there is anything "trivial" about them. What we call "objective reality" or the "external world" is the world as it appears to us.
....Anyway, objective reality is not superficial.
.... So long as physics consists of theories that only address the objective/measurable aspects of Reality, then it can't get at the inner essence of things. ....
appearances are not "trivial"
however they are external only, and they do not address or describe the inner essence
they do not go beyond the surface
superficial is that which does not go beyond the surface of appearances
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
...
One consideration: Many philosophers and scientists (most notably anyone favoring the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics) argue that physics tells us nothing about the "essence" or "inner reality" of things. Physics can only reveal Nature as She is "exposed to our method of questioning" - not as She is "in Herself". We observe the observable properties of things, not the intrinsic properties of things.
This brings us to Immanuel Kant's distinction between "things-in-themselves" (aka "noumena") and "things as they appear to us" (aka, "phenomena"). Bohr was basically a Kantian when he made the quip about us only knowing Nature as "exposed to our method of questioning."
The non-physicalist ought to take comfort in the Kantian distinction. Science can only explore phenomena - never, even in principle, can science say anything about the noumenal realm, which leave room for non-physical souls and, perhaps, God. They are the noumenal "intrinsic essences" that lurk below appearances and, presumably, animate the phenomenal world....
I am not able to use or understand the words "noumena" and "phenomena" in this context, so I am seeking to use language and words that are more commonly used, for greater clarity and understanding in the discussion. We want to understand the ideas and views and concepts that you are seeking to convey.
I am grouping together concepts that we have been discussing in this thread into two sets, starting with the words you led with and adding phrases or words that seek to express the same thing or similar.
observable properties of things; objective reality; external world; "things as they appear to us" (aka, "phenomena"); ; that which can be measured and verified by others; outer appearances or observations; what is apparent, on the surface, outer, exterior, superficial
intrinsic properties of things; "things-in-themselves" (aka "noumena"); essence; inner reality; qualitative experiences; inner essence; that which is experienced internally but can not be verified by anyone else; going beneath the surface or behind the appearance, interior, deeper
situated or occurring on the skin or immediately beneath it:
"the superficial muscle groups"
appearing to be true or real only until examined more closely:
"the resemblance between the breeds is superficial" synonyms:apparent · seeming · outward · ostensible · cosmetic · slight
intrinsic properties of things; "things-in-themselves" (aka "noumena"); essence; inner reality; qualitative experiences; inner essence; that which is experienced internally but can not be verified by anyone else; going beneath the surface or behind the appearance, interior, deeper
I am to blame for this confusion, so I will try to set this straight, if I can. In Kantian terms, the noumenal realm is not really "inner reality" or "qualitative experience". According to Kant, we cannot assign any descriptive properties to the noumenal. (Again, think of Zen koans, or perhaps "Mu" (Unasking the question": "The term is often used or translated to mean that the question itself must be "unasked": no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both correct and incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) ) Or, perhaps, think of the famous quote about the Tao: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." The source of our capacity to create categories escapes all categorization.
Religious people can (and the smart non-literalist ones often do) point to this conundrum and use it as a way to characterize the infinity of God, or the sense in which God is beyond all rational comprehension, but nevertheless "real". And they could be right. Since I can't truly say anything about the noumenal, I can't say it "is" or "is not" God. All I can do is "un-ask the question" - which is essentially my agnosticism in a nutshell.
But perhaps now you can see why, from my point of view, the Christian Bible is immediately and deeply flawed. The Bible has God hiding behind burning bushes, and claiming Jews as his chosen people, and "resting on the 7th day," and whatnot. No. The Tao that has a conniption fit because He stepped in Adams poop is not the eternal Tao. This is my atheism, in a nutshell.
Of course Kant is controversial and, frankly, I break my own rules all over the place and I'm not certain where my approach fits it terms of the Kantian controversy, but I'm inclined to agree with Kant that we can't really say anything about the noumenal, as such. But in saying "We can't say anything" about the Tao, we are already contradicting ourselves because we are saying something about the Tao. We are, in fact, saying something about which nothing can be said. We know that we can't know anything about it, but this knowledge is, itself, knowledge about that which we know that we can't know anything. This goofy dilemma is what drives the Zen masters to develop koans, or causes some of them to simply whack you with a stick.
We certainly can't talk about the noumenal realm as "subjective" or "inner" or "qualitative" because all of these categories are grounded in phenomenal experience. As soon as you think of the noumenal as "inner" or "subjective" you are already wrong in a deeply important way. If you want to poke your eyeballs with a pencil right now, I can't really blame you.
Quote:
su·per·fi·cial
ADJECTIVE [*]not having or showing depth or character of understanding
In the context of your statements when using the word 'superficial' this was the connotation I picked up on. Perhaps I was wrong.
I'm not sure it is that, Gaylen. In saying that 'we cannot say anything about it' we are not saying anything about It but about ourselves and our own limitations.
We cannot even say whether It is here or not to be perceived by us, only that we don't know whether we perceive it or not. Again, our own limitations. In that case it could be (Mystic will love this ) something we know or everything we know. Since we don't know what It is, we have know way of knowing what it is or is not.
Agnosticism, as you say. Which is why I confine myself to what we can know (inasmuch as we can know anything - to a given value of "Know") and leave the unknowns as unknown until we do.
...
In the context of your statements when using the word 'superficial' this was the connotation I picked up on. Perhaps I was wrong.
su·per·fi·cial
ADJECTIVE [*]not having or showing depth or character of understanding In the context of your statements when using the word 'superficial' this was the connotation I picked up on. Perhaps I was wrong.
superficial DOES mean lacking depth.
that is correct. that is accurate.
that which is the "external" or at the "surface" is superficial.
that which is "internal" is beneath the surface, is at a greater depth.
if a person evaluates or understands something based only on the "external" or the "surface" yes that is a superficial understanding.
because it excludes or ignores the "inner essence" that which is deeper, at greater depth.
I have consistently used the example of a human.
knowing a person superficially (height, shape, income, appearance, car, clothes, letters after their name) is not knowing them at a deeper level, their inner essence (personality, character, integrity, tenderness).
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-07-2017 at 06:16 PM..
I am to blame for this confusion, so I will try to set this straight, if I can. In Kantian terms, the noumenal realm is not really "inner reality" or "qualitative experience". According to Kant, we cannot assign any descriptive properties to the noumenal. (Again, think of Zen koans, or perhaps "Mu" (Unasking the question": "The term is often used or translated to mean that the question itself must be "unasked": no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both correct and incorrect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative) ) Or, perhaps, think of the famous quote about the Tao: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." The source of our capacity to create categories escapes all categorization.
Religious people can (and the smart non-literalist ones often do) point to this conundrum and use it as a way to characterize the infinity of God, or the sense in which God is beyond all rational comprehension, but nevertheless "real". And they could be right. Since I can't truly say anything about the noumenal, I can't say it "is" or "is not" God. All I can do is "un-ask the question" - which is essentially my agnosticism in a nutshell.
But perhaps now you can see why, from my point of view, the Christian Bible is immediately and deeply flawed. The Bible has God hiding behind burning bushes, and claiming Jews as his chosen people, and "resting on the 7th day," and whatnot. No. The Tao that has a conniption fit because He stepped in Adams poop is not the eternal Tao. This is my atheism, in a nutshell.
Of course Kant is controversial and, frankly, I break my own rules all over the place and I'm not certain where my approach fits it terms of the Kantian controversy, but I'm inclined to agree with Kant that we can't really say anything about the noumenal, as such. But in saying "We can't say anything" about the Tao, we are already contradicting ourselves because we are saying something about the Tao. We are, in fact, saying something about which nothing can be said. We know that we can't know anything about it, but this knowledge is, itself, knowledge about that which we know that we can't know anything. This goofy dilemma is what drives the Zen masters to develop koans, or causes some of them to simply whack you with a stick.
We certainly can't talk about the noumenal realm as "subjective" or "inner" or "qualitative" because all of these categories are grounded in phenomenal experience. As soon as you think of the noumenal as "inner" or "subjective" you are already wrong in a deeply important way. If you want to poke your eyeballs with a pencil right now, I can't really blame you....
I have no desire to discuss God, the Tao, Kant, Buddha, Zhaozhou, delusions, Mu, koans, philosophy, religious people, the Bible, Jews, Crstians, Adam, or Zen. I don't find them useful or relevant in clarifying the topics currently under discussion. Rather they muddy the waters. Other people with those interests can certainly chime in.
I think you have this perception because you tend to cherry-pick my statements looking for ways to support your own arguments and, given this focus, tend not to really hear what I'm saying. But, to be fair, some of it probably also stems from the nature of what I'm doing here in these treads. These posts are sorta like "diary entries" for me, which is to say, stream of consciousness blabbering about what's on my mind at a given time. In most cases I don't really know what I'm trying to say until I say it, and then sometimes I have to go back and figure out what the heck I just said. This leaves plenty of room for potential inconsistencies although, at the moment, I'm not actually aware of any blatant inconsistencies. If there are some, hopefully ya'll will point them out.
I am exploring both. I think, perhaps, you just don't quite comprehend what I've been saying in some cases. And it's probably not entirely your fault. As I said these stream of consciousness "diary entries" are probably not as clear, concise, and consistent as they could be.
your views and thoughts have been very clearly laid out. we appreciate your posts and the discussion. I do hear and seek to understand what you are saying. Often times others can hear what you are saying more clearly than you yourself can. That is not "trying to convince you of anything" so much as "reflecting back to you" what you are expressing. My observation is that when you go back and read "what the heck you just said" it may bring up other questions and concerns. it can be disconcerting.
It is a very valuable method to work through things by writing them out, talking them out, discussing them out. Not because of what anyone else says. But because you then are able to hear what you are saying and try it on for size. It is a very useful and helpful approach.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-07-2017 at 07:58 PM..
... So long as physics consists of theories that only address the objective/measurable aspects of Reality, then it can't get at the inner essence of things....
I agree that science physics in its current state can't get at the inner essence of things.
given that, it raises some questions:
how do we investigate the inner essence of something (whether that is the inner essence of a person, of lightning, of disease, of integrity). What tools do we use to explore and learn more and increase our knowledge and understanding?
and who does the investigating?
and why bother? what does it matter? is it necessary ? or useful?
...We certainly can't talk about the noumenal realm as "subjective" or "inner" or "qualitative" because all of these categories are grounded in phenomenal experience. As soon as you think of the noumenal as "inner" or "subjective" you are already wrong in a deeply important way. ....
good. i opt to remove "noumenal" and "phenomenal" from this discussion. this makes me happy. leaving us with:
observable properties of things; objective reality; external world; that which can be measured and verified by others; outer appearances or observations; what is apparent, on the surface, outer, exterior, superficial
intrinsic properties of things; essence; inner reality; qualitative experiences; inner essence; that which is experienced internally but can not be verified by anyone else; going beneath the surface or behind the appearance, interior, deeper.
....So there you are. You are welcome to put that in your hat and smoke it....
I do get it Gaylen. What appears to us as "solid and substantial and real" isn't. It is like a movie projected into a screen. Looks real seems real feels real when you are in the movie even when you are watching the movie.
But the movie is not solid or real. There is a projector showing the movie. And there is a mind creating inventing scripting the movie that is the main attraction on the big screen
Back to what you said that "you prefer science." Does that mean you prefer to keep thinking the movie is real because science tells us the movie is real? I dont want to put words in your mouth. So please can you share where you and science appear or fit using the scenario of the movie as life.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-08-2017 at 08:31 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) something we know or everything we know. Since we don't know what It is, we have know way of knowing what it is or is not. 
