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.
Some philosophers are "verificationists" but, in general, most believe that knowledge is not strictly limited to what can be empirically verified, or to what can be "objectively" verified by current science. Phenomenology, for example, requires empirical (in the form of intersubjective or "1st-person-plural") verification, but it recognizes that all knowledge is ultimately grounded in subjective experience and thus, descriptions of experience cannot be reduced to 3rd-person concepts.
But, really, I think a more important discussion involves the concept of "mechanism". Does every explanation need to be mechanistic? (Where "mechanism" = reducible to algorithmic/deterministic/law-like mathematical models.) I'm fairly certain that we will never have a fully mechanistic explanation of subjective/qualitative experience. We might someday identify the "neural correlates" of experiences, but the question of why those neural activities "feel like that" will not be answered via deeper mechanism. The buck stops at brute-fact qualitative potentials and relations. This is the "miracle" aspect of Existence. MPhD and others want to insist that the miracle is an intelligent God, and they could be right. But I remain highly skeptical of the "intelligent" part and, in any case, I'm pretty sure that life is not "intelligent design." I think that "qualitative naturalism" is an option. On this model, intelligence evolves. It is not fundamental.
I think I'm safe in saying that you will never find a peer-reviewed philosopher who believes that.
That's why I wondered whether any had vetted those articles. I found myself asking "They just let that go?"
The two articles on consciousness (one on Vedanta, one on Chinese) were provided to show that cultures and civilizations across the globe and across the centuries have had explanations for consciousness. And that some of those explanations from thousands of years ago are now being described in scientific terms.
See post #4579 and #4580
That's just what I didn't see. Of course (as a materialist...sorta ) i take a working assumption that things are theoretically explainable in scientific terms, if we ever find out how they work. I just saw a lot of 'Zeus was traditionally seen as throwing thunderbolts and ancient tradition saw God as doing the same thing' sort of argument and appeal to tradition struck me as myth slipped under the door as 'Philosophy'. Of course this would be valid as a paper on ancient (or ought to be) thinking, and indeed would be relevant to topic. But skeptics are for sure entitles to say (as I do) "Fine - but is there any reason to suppose these beliefs are true?"
Whether the ancient views are "explanations" in the modern scientific sense remains questionable. And whether explanations have to take this scientific form is also debatable. I am inclined to say "no" to both. Some of the ancients probably had some insights via meditative practices that modern science has not yet achieved, but modern science and philosophy have developed insight that the ancients probably never achieved. I easily know some things about the taste of sugar that science will probably never explain, but this doesn't mean that science can't teach me lots of things about the taste that I could have never known without scientific progress.
We might someday create beings who can experience things far beyond anything biologically human minds at the moment can possibly comprehend. I think it is safe to say that the ancients did not posses that sort of knowledge.
They romped with such beings.
You romped with such beings.
You still do.
Not all of you is contained in your current physical body in this current human incarnation. Parts of you currently not in your physical form are elsewhere in the universe frolicking with such beings.
I'm baffled and fascinated every time we bump up against this bizarre ego obstacle which rears and claims and insists others ĺfor instance ancients) can't possibly know such and such. The obvious question is why not? Where is that coming from and why do you (and others) cling to it so desperately? I am curious to know. No one is trying to convince you of anything. It's simply information and ideas being discussed. I truly don't understand why or how anyone feels so threatened or gets so riled at ancients having knowledge and understanding that has been ignored or lost or buried or dismissed or forgotten or overlooked.
If you are able to explain that defensiveness / hostility / upset (not the exact words but close) and where it's coming from and what it is attached to and why it is such a trigger I'd be very curious to hear. It puzzles me. Because all we are doing is discussing ideas and information.
Statements like "they couldn't possibly know that" or "lucky guess" or "they didnt know anything about that" are simply not coming from a rational place.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-03-2018 at 09:16 PM..
It's the same lack of rational thinking as found in the opening post which suggests nobody experienced or expressed God's love until 2,000 years ago. Or nobody had a conscience until 2,000 years ago. Those are not rational statements. Those are statements of supremacy and superiority, which are the antithesis of humbleness....which is a core element in not only spiritual advancement, but success and maturity in social settings, relationships, leadership positions, emotional development and business as well.
Gaylen used a lovely phrase in one of his posts a few pages back, "self reflective humility." Which identifies two essential traits for advancement in learning, gaining greater (more in depth) understanding, and refining our character development. The more we refine our character traits the more we are able to learn, and advance intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually.
Anyway the two elements in the lovely phrase from Gaylen's post are "self reflection" and "humbleness."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-03-2018 at 09:58 PM..
And when reading or studying anything if a person does not understand (or seek to understand) the material presented, then it skews their ability to evaluate it.
The less a person understands the material presented then the less relevant is their commentary.
Two examples. Last weekend we were watching a movie and a young woman watching it did not like it due to some of the comments in the movie about women such as a character saying "very few women in this town can read." She (the woman watching the movie in 2018) took issue with that. However in the time and place portrayed in the movie, that was the factual and historically accurate reality.
She dismisses the movie out of hand. Because she perceives a compliment as an insult. In the movie a young man from the city (he said the quote) is impressed with and admires a woman in a small town who shows an interest in books and their courtship includes reading and discussing books.
Second example from the opening post is the claim that Noah killed the animals he was instructed to save. Which is not the case and demonstrates a flawed commentary, lack of understanding and flawed logic. Noah took a group of animals to save which he did and he took a group of animals for sacrifice which he did. If a person doesn't understand what they are reading then their commentary is not relevant. In this case since he got the story wrong, his commentary on it is not accurate. (Some animals Noah took x2 of, some animals he took x7 of.)
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 12-04-2018 at 06:23 AM..
Of course similarly anyone who reads the story as anything but a story - and thinks it factual in that they think a man reached that age group and then built such a ship and populated it with that many animals for those reasons and that period of time - demonstrates a flawed commentary, lack of understanding of basic reality and flawed logic of pretty much any type at all
So sure if a person doesn't understand what they are reading then their commentary is not often relevant. But similarly if a person does not understand the reality in which they are reading it - similarly so.
Not saying anyone here is actually doing that on this thread - but there is a few of them about. The guy claiming that Noah had access to freeze dried food stuffs still makes me chortle today.
I'm al for those things, if we mean asking questions, and accepting that we could be mistaken.
It's rather as old Eusebius used to say "You never watch the video all the way through".
When in the first five minutes, I see some invalid claims made, that sorta puts the skids under the whole video, irrespective of whether i have studied the (usually Creationist) claims and understand them perfectly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus
Of course similarly anyone who reads the story as anything but a story - and thinks it factual in that they think a man reached that age group and then built such a ship and populated it with that many animals for those reasons and that period of time - demonstrates a flawed commentary, lack of understanding of basic reality and flawed logic of pretty much any type at all
So sure if a person doesn't understand what they are reading then their commentary is not often relevant. But similarly if a person does not understand the reality in which they are reading it - similarly so.
Not saying anyone here is actually doing that on this thread - but there is a few of them about. The guy claiming that Noah had access to freeze dried food stuffs still makes me chortle today.
The freeze -dried eucalyptus leaves became a classic chuckle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
Two examples. Last weekend we were watching a movie and a young woman watching it did not like it due to some of the comments in the movie about women such as a character saying "very few women in this town can read." She (the woman watching the movie in 2018) took issue with that. However in the time and place portrayed in the movie, that was the factual and historically accurate reality.
She dismisses the movie out of hand. Because she perceives a compliment as an insult. In the movie a young man from the city (he said the quote) is impressed with and admires a woman in a small town who shows an interest in books and their courtship includes reading and discussing books.
Second example from the opening post is the claim that Noah killed the animals he was instructed to save. Which is not the case and demonstrates a flawed commentary, lack of understanding and flawed logic. Noah took a group of animals to save which he did and he took a group of animals for sacrifice which he did. If a person doesn't understand what they are reading then their commentary is not relevant. In this case since he got the story wrong, his commentary on it is not accurate. (Some animals Noah took x2 of, some animals he took x7 of.)
I don't know whether that's to me or not, as i was talking about those papers on what we might call eastern alternative science claims.
Certainly, if I read a post on the contents of the gospels and it happened to mention that I couldn't be expected to understand it because Englishmen were all semi -educated yobs who could hardly read and only watched football games, I might take exception (I might agree ) but I wouldn't dismiss the post on that account and it would be a false accusation if anyone said i did. If anyone does, they are doing it wrong and i would tell them so.
And you probably know me well enough that, if I made some wrong claim about the Noah story and you pointed it out, i would check and say "You are correct". And anyone who doesn't do that is also doing it wrong. And I would tell them so if they wanted to know.
So if it's to me, you have got me wrong, and if it isn't that is a valid point -if it applies to anyone who does that.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-04-2018 at 07:44 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.
) i take a working assumption that things are theoretically explainable in scientific terms, if we ever find out how they work. I just saw a lot of 'Zeus was traditionally seen as throwing thunderbolts and ancient tradition saw God as doing the same thing' sort of argument and appeal to tradition struck me as myth slipped under the door as 'Philosophy'. Of course this would be valid as a paper on ancient (or ought to be) thinking, and indeed would be relevant to topic. But skeptics are for sure entitles to say (as I do) "Fine - but is there any reason to suppose these beliefs are true?"
) but I wouldn't dismiss the post on that account and it would be a false accusation if anyone said i did. If anyone does, they are doing it wrong and i would tell them so.