U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-19-2007, 04:18 AM
 
72 posts, read 180,898 times
Reputation: 24

Advertisements

Tap..tap..tap..We are blind creatures tapping through life

Richard Feynman, now deceased, was a theoretical physicist and professor of physics at MIT gave to his students the following description of what physics is all about:

“We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes “the world” is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics. Even if we know every rule, however…what we really can explain in terms of those rules is very limited, because almost all situations are so enormously complicated that we cannot follow the plays of the game using the rules, much less tell what is going to happen next. We must, therefore, limit ourselves to the more basic question of the rules of the game. If we know the rules, we consider that we “understand” the world.”

The natural sciences, especially physics, have been very successful at learning the rules of the game. Our didactic (teaching by telling) educational system has been very successful at teaching these rules to their students. The students have been very successful at using these rules and the algorithms and paradigms developed from these rules in developing the high tech economy that we have. We have not been equally as successful in matters regarding the human sciences; thus we kill and destroy constantly.

We are animals who can no longer depend on our animal instinct—we must depend upon our self and on others who, in turn, lean on us—life is overwhelming and the world is infinitely expanding and beyond our comprehension—we survive by chewing off chunks, narrow small digestible chunks—we must become oblivious of the rest or we are consumed by the enormity—Becker says “repression is normal self-protection and creative self-restriction” is our substitute for instinct—this is the meaning of partialization—we partialize the world—the well-adjusted man or woman partializes the world so that s/he can normalize anxiety.

The Holy Roman Empire, i.e. the Catholic Church, packaged life so that the uncritical could exist within the womb of dogma. This lasted for a millennium; post Enlightenment humans became too sophisticated for such slavish attachment and thus we moderns must create our own zone of normalcy.

We have become sophisticated enough to have removed from our life the total domination that the Church had over us but we have not yet discovered how to replace that all encompassing grasp with something more suitably designed to allow us to live together with our overwhelming technology.

They “tranquilize themselves with the trivial”.—Kierkegaard

How can we become intellectually sophisticated enough to survive our own technological success?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2007, 04:50 AM
 
76 posts, read 159,651 times
Reputation: 25
Evolution favors creatures that are able to survive only. Evolution does not favor "real perception" per se. How do humans really know that their perceptions of the world are reflective of the world at all? Amoebas we assume, do not perceive the world accurately for what it is, and yet they flourish. Why should we assume that our perception of the world would be anymore representative of the real universe than that of an amoeba? Real perception of the world might ofcourse further the capacity to survive but so can an infinite number of other conceivable adaptations, ones far more likely to arise. Evolution only cares about survival. What if we are actually as blind as the animals all around us but simply competant at surviving? tap tap tap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 06:35 AM
 
2,065 posts, read 4,160,552 times
Reputation: 972
Good post Perceiver.... I feel like I've found an ally. Iron sharpening Iron.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 06:46 AM
 
72 posts, read 180,898 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perceiver View Post
Evolution favors creatures that are able to survive only. Evolution does not favor "real perception" per se. How do humans really know that their perceptions of the world are reflective of the world at all? Amoebas we assume, do not perceive the world accurately for what it is, and yet they flourish. Why should we assume that our perception of the world would be anymore representative of the real universe than that of an amoeba? Real perception of the world might ofcourse further the capacity to survive but so can an infinite number of other conceivable adaptations, ones far more likely to arise. Evolution only cares about survival. What if we are actually as blind as the animals all around us but simply competant at surviving? tap tap tap.
Objectivism is a fundamentalist philosophy. It believes that reality is something external to the brain and that the task of the brain is to gain knowledge about this external reality.

Right/wrong and true/false are considered to be objective criteria rather than subjective criteria. Objectivism posits perfect knowledge and assumes such knowledge is obtainable. I think that such views have been discredited.

Objectivity is a shared subjectivity. Objective truth is a misnomer there is only shared truth/false and there is only shared good/bad.

Objectivity is shared subjectivity. We create reality in our brain. If you and I create the same reality then we have a shared subjectivity. We cannot know the thing-in-itself, as Kant informs us and is easily recognized if we focus upon it.

I would say that reality comes in two forms; the thing-in-itself is the reality that Kant informs us that we cannot know and then we have the reality that our brain creates. This reality we create is aided by the senses and it is a representation of the thing-in-itself. If the correspondence between the thing-in-itself and the creature’s representation is too far off the creature quickly becomes toast.


This reality we create is truth. The reality the lion creates is truth. If the truth we create is not sufficiently in correspondence with the thing-in-itself then we are toast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,715 posts, read 12,036,959 times
Reputation: 4273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perceiver View Post
Evolution favors creatures that are able to survive only. Evolution does not favor "real perception" per se. How do humans really know that their perceptions of the world are reflective of the world at all? Amoebas we assume, do not perceive the world accurately for what it is, and yet they flourish. Why should we assume that our perception of the world would be anymore representative of the real universe than that of an amoeba? Real perception of the world might ofcourse further the capacity to survive but so can an infinite number of other conceivable adaptations, ones far more likely to arise. Evolution only cares about survival. What if we are actually as blind as the animals all around us but simply competant at surviving? tap tap tap.
Richard Dawkins did a fantastic presentation on this. I think you may be interested, or perhaps not, on why we perceive things such as we do, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

It's about 22 minutes long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 01:10 PM
 
12,389 posts, read 13,081,092 times
Reputation: 8877
Quote:
Originally Posted by coberst View Post
How can we become intellectually sophisticated enough to survive our own technological success?
Better for me to ask, How can we become simple enough to escape the severe problems created by overuse of the intellect? We are blind when we only use one part of ourselves, such as the intellect, and rely on it and it alone so heavily that our other parts atrophy (such as heart, emotions; and spirit, soul). We are blind when we use only our intellect, which science and technology are really good at doing. We become seeing, competent, capable, balanced people (and communities, and nations) when we include our other capacities: heart, emotions, soul, and spirit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 01:19 PM
 
76 posts, read 159,651 times
Reputation: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
Richard Dawkins did a fantastic presentation on this. I think you may be interested, or perhaps not, on why we perceive things such as we do, at least from an evolutionary standpoint.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw

It's about 22 minutes long.

The speech seems to assume the existence of "real perception" and simply discusses the various levels upon which it might exist, micro/macro etc.

The question i posed is why we should assume evolutionary adaptations offer the capacity to perceive on any level rather than simply the capacity to "cope" or respond effectively to the rigors of whatever level of actual reality the organism exists on. As I said in my first post, real perception of the world might further the capacity to survive but so can an infinite number of other conceivable adaptations, ones far more likely to arise. Evolution dosen't favor perception, it favors survival.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top