Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 106 of 142 (430198)
10-23-2007 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by JavaMan
10-23-2007 12:23 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Thanks JavaMan. I was hoping someone else would lend their voice here. All these comments illustrate the very literal-minded approach at this forum, exemplified by Quetzal's latest comment, which is why I'm going to de-register before I'm tempted to comment on anything further and get my ass slapped some more. Thanks for bringing a sensible note to this discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2007 12:23 PM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Damouse, posted 10-23-2007 11:46 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 116 by Quetzal, posted 10-24-2007 10:10 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 142 (430201)
10-23-2007 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Quetzal
10-23-2007 3:50 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I'm just tempted to reply to this bit:
But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock?
Let's see, from my standpoint:
philosophy = metaphysical navel gazing. Put two philosophers in a room, ask whether the sky is blue, and you'll get three mutually contradictory answers.
religion = belief in the existence of something in the face of and in spite of an utter lack of evidence for that something. IOW, willfull self-delusion.
In a word: yes.
Talk about self delusion!
Did you know...
Students declaring an intention to go to graduate school in Philosophy score higher on the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) than all but four other major fields (out of fifty recorded by the Educational Testing Service, which runs the Graduate Record Exam)? The only fields that score higher mean scores on the combined Verbal, Quantitative, and Analytical sections of the GRE are (in rank order) Physics and Astronomy, Mathematical Sciences, Materials Engineering, and Chemical Engineering.
Philosophy students score higher than every other major in the Humanities and Arts, higher than every major in the Social Science, higher than every major in the Life Sciences, higher than every major in Education, higher than every major in Business, and higher than every major listed under "Other Fields." In fact, Philosophy students score higher than four out of the six majors listed in Physical Sciences, and five out of the seven listed in Engineering.
from http://www.lclark.edu/~phil/gre.html
also see :Page not found | College of Humanities and Social Sciences
So much for your "scientific" evaluation of philosophy.
Maybe you and others here ought to spend a little time figuring out how you are subconsciously biasing your data.
Of course AFTER you've biased your data then everything looks logical, to you at least.
Edited by petrophysics, : fix quote boxes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Quetzal, posted 10-23-2007 3:50 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2007 7:39 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 10-23-2007 9:59 PM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 119 by nator, posted 10-25-2007 6:37 AM petrophysics1 has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 142 (430206)
10-23-2007 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by JavaMan
10-23-2007 12:23 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Don't you think it's possible to come to the truth about anything, except via scientific investigation or logic?
It's not at all obvious that there's any means by which fantasy can be distinguished from reality, except scientific investigation and logic.
That's the problem. Maybe you think your meditations are telling you something true, but how do you know? How do you know it's not just your imagination, not God? How do you distinguish false meditation from true? False revelation from true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2007 12:23 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by JavaMan, posted 10-24-2007 7:59 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 142 (430208)
10-23-2007 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by petrophysics1
10-23-2007 7:10 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
So much for your "scientific" evaluation of philosophy.
I don't get it. What's the point, here? I don't see where Quetzal said that philosophers were idiots.
Indeed if these great minds are wasting their time in the made-up field of philosophy, more's the tragedy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by petrophysics1, posted 10-23-2007 7:10 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 110 of 142 (430223)
10-23-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by petrophysics1
10-23-2007 7:10 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
So much for your "scientific" evaluation of philosophy.
Maybe you and others here ought to spend a little time figuring out how you are subconsciously biasing your data.
Your point is what, exactly? Did you somehow miss the part where I mentioned this was my outlook? Did you perhaps think that my opinion represented some type of "scientific evaluation"? I think, actually, you proved my point perfectly.
Of course AFTER you've biased your data then everything looks logical, to you at least.
And what data would that be? Are you back to claiming my brief opinion represents some kind of in-depth analysis? You give me a lot more credit than I would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by petrophysics1, posted 10-23-2007 7:10 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 111 of 142 (430234)
10-23-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by JavaMan
10-23-2007 12:21 PM


Re: Logic, science and the brain
1. Science is not the same as logic. Science is empirical, i.e. it uses observation and experiment to understand the world. If logic contradicts reality (which it sometimes can do), then the logic is at fault.
Science may not be the same as logic by definition but science is founded upon science. The statement does not have to be valid in reverse for science to be a production of logic. When DOES logic contradict reality, out of general curiousity? A few potential situations come to mind, but there is always a logical, higher reason that i can think fo for each situation. What are you thinknig of?
2. The brain is not a logic machine. It works by association, not by logic. We have logical skills, but they're just a tiny part of what our brain does. For much our interaction with the world, logical thinking is completely inappropriate.
Did you read my post? I specifically said that at its highest levels, the brain is an incredibly abstract computer. But, like ANY computer or ANY abstract system, at its basest level you will always find simplicity and uniformity, all completly logic and obvious.
3. Science is not a complete world view. It is an analytical method for creating models of the world. Those models can be immensely powerful for making predictions, and for generating technology, but they're still models, not the reality itself.
NO. Specifically opposite to what i said, but maybe i didnt make my points clear. I stated that science should never be an object; you should never look at science, you should look at everything else with science, with logic. At its more obvious and concrete level it does create us models and explain the world around us, but the spirit of science, the skepticism and curiosity and logic, does not just have a place in the classroom and the lab.
My favorite scholastic question was, "what is the point of learning this math?" And the answer begun; Its useful for x, y, z, it teaches you study habits, it expands your mind and teaches you to THINK. Once one leaves the classroom, you do not stop applying that open-mindedness, that Math sense because its only applicable for math.
If we have no logic, we have nothing as humans.

This statement is false.
Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2007 12:21 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by JavaMan, posted 10-24-2007 8:28 AM Damouse has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 4905 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 112 of 142 (430235)
10-23-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Kitsune
10-23-2007 6:40 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Oh linda.
What an interesting response. Im kinda sad we drove you out.

This statement is false.
Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Kitsune, posted 10-23-2007 6:40 PM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by nator, posted 10-25-2007 6:27 AM Damouse has not replied

  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 113 of 142 (430270)
10-24-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by JavaMan
10-23-2007 12:23 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
JavaMan writes:
Don't you think it's possible to come to the truth about anything, except via scientific investigation or logic?
It all depends on what "kind" of Truth we're talking about here.
Of course I don't consider/analyse each and every concept that I get in touch with, or observation that I make, upto a degree that I would include it in "Truth", before I deal with it and go on with my life. But yeah, when I'm pushed to say whether I think something is True or not, I consider my own gut feeling or superficial impressions as pretty irrelevant and worthless. My impression of some thing/phenomenon might be bang on, it might be a useful approximation or it might even be a huuuge misconception that happens to be irrelevant in the context of how I deal with it.
For example I've had a couple of experiences that others would easily have classified as "paranormal". Like this time when I walked to the postbox, for no particular reason thought about somebody I had known a couple of years ago, and believe it or not when I opened the postbox there was a letter by this person!
Linda would, I guess (sorry if I'm wrong), seriously contemplate concepts like Synchronicity or whatever in a case like this. All I thought was that, since the last time that something like that had happened to me, a trillion other events must have happened in my life which had the same potential of creating an incredible coincidence. I thought it was strange that I had to wait that long for it to happen again, lol.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by JavaMan, posted 10-23-2007 12:23 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 114 of 142 (430275)
10-24-2007 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by crashfrog
10-23-2007 7:37 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
That's the problem. Maybe you think your meditations are telling you something true, but how do you know? How do you know it's not just your imagination, not God? How do you distinguish false meditation from true? False revelation from true?
Logic is very useful and very powerful when we can decompose a problem into binary opposites. If we can simplify like that, then there's nothing to beat it.
But there are all kinds of things we have to make judgements about that aren't so simple. Let me give you some examples:
1. I'm teaching a creative writing class and my students want advice on improving their poetry. I can advise them on use of rhyme and rhythm, on the use of images, and so forth. I'm imparting knowledge to them, but it isn't knowledge that can be investigated scientifically or analysed logically (and it would be missing the point even if you tried). So how do they judge whether my advice is sound?
2. Similarly, how do my children judge whether the moral rules I try to inculcate in them are sound or unsound? It isn't science that helps them decide, or logic (although they are likely to use reasoning of some kind).
3. I'm reading a book on Buddhism at the moment. I'm being told that the human condition is one of unease, of dissatisfaction. How do I decide whether that statement is true or not? It's not a scientific hypothesis, so it can't really be tested scientifically, and it's not a logical proposition so I can't evaluate it using propositional logic. And yet there's seems an element of truth there, and it seems a claim worthy of being investigated further.
All of these examples have one thing in common, they're about our subjective experience of the world rather than about the world per se. They're squishy, vague, personal things that aren't within the domain of science or logic, but still have value (and for most people have much more value than the things that science and logic deal with).
Which is why LindaLou is getting so upset. She's misinterpreting the attacks on her beliefs as attacks on this personal sphere of existence. And it doesn't help when everyone keeps exaggerating, and telling her that nothing has value unless it can be verified by science or logic.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by crashfrog, posted 10-23-2007 7:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 10-24-2007 10:36 AM JavaMan has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 115 of 142 (430276)
10-24-2007 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Damouse
10-23-2007 11:44 PM


Re: Logic, science and the brain
When DOES logic contradict reality, out of general curiousity?
When the premises are false. In toy problems, it's always obvious when the premises of a logical argument are false, but in reality it isn't so easy. Logic, unrestrained by observation of reality, has been used to construct monstrous orthodoxies through the ages, and empiricism, and the scientific method, grew out of a reaction against such unrestrained use of logic.
I specifically said that at its highest levels, the brain is an incredibly abstract computer. But, like ANY computer or ANY abstract system, at its basest level you will always find simplicity and uniformity, all completly logic and obvious.
The brain isn't a computer. It doesn't work using logic gates. Oh, and it isn't simple or obvious.
At its more obvious and concrete level it does create us models and explain the world around us, but the spirit of science, the skepticism and curiosity and logic, does not just have a place in the classroom and the lab.
I quite agree.
If we have no logic, we have nothing as humans.
No, there's much more to being human than logic. I probably use logic more than most people (because I have to write computer programs all day), but even for me it's a skill of minor importance, much less important than my ability to get along with other people, or my ability to remember my wife's birthday, or my ability to read the newspaper. Reasoning (and more specifically, logic) is for problem solving, and not all of our life is problem solving.

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Damouse, posted 10-23-2007 11:44 PM Damouse has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 116 of 142 (430282)
10-24-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Kitsune
10-23-2007 6:40 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
All these comments illustrate the very literal-minded approach at this forum, exemplified by Quetzal's latest comment, which is why I'm going to de-register before I'm tempted to comment on anything further and get my ass slapped some more.
A pity that you chose the grand gesture of the (in)famous Discussion Board Suicidetm. I would suggest that if you don't want to hear the answer to a question, you probably shouldn't ask it.
Although you may or may not read this reply, since you have taken that route, I would like to point out that you have evidently misconstrued my point. Whenever "truth" (small "t") claims are made, the use of philosophy and/or religion should play no part in evaluating those claims. Only, and let me emphasize this, only, has the scientific method EVER in history provided valid understanding of the world/universe that we inhabit. I think this is perhaps one reason you have suffered here.
When I wish to determine whether it is safe to cross the road in the face of on-coming traffic, I do not ponder the existentialism of a car, or the metaphysical purpose of traffic. No, I observe the actual pattern before me, my brain makes a very complex lightning-fast calculation of velocity and distance (with practice, this is almost unconscious), and then orders my body to either proceed or wait. I don't pray to a deity, either. When I wish to determine whether a particular substance is safe to put in my body in order to protect (or cure) it from a particular threat/malady, I don't meditate on the paraconsistent logic of the mind-body duality or how the concept of holism applies, or whatever other metaphysical claptrap-du-jour may be currently the flavor. Rather, I seek out and read the literature - based purely on the scientific method - wherein those substances have been evaluated, their reactions tested, and their miscibility, or lack, with other substances determined. Then, and only then, do I make the informed decision to ingest or not. I don't pray for divine guidance.
The obvious counter-argument here is the claim that science cannot examine things such as purpose (i.e., the "Why are we here?", or "Why is there life?" questions), or determine the answer to value/morality questions (i.e., "Why be good to others?"), or for that matter evaluate emotion questions (i.e., "What is love?"). However, I call BS on this. In the first place, the idea that such questions have any relevance whatsoever is one that has been foisted on humankind by philosophers. The as-yet-unevidenced claim that these questions are "important" is made by the people whose work revolves around answering them. Suspicious, to say the least.
Secondly, all the questions and subsequent answers dreamed of by philosophers/religious are purely and wholly subjective. In other words, both the importance of the question and the nature of the conjured answer are culturally and socially dependent. Aristotle claimed to have identified universal "principles" - and then every other philosopher down through the ages has argued against them. One of my favorite quotes on this subject is from David Hume (another philosopher, buggerit):
quote:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (full text)
So, despite the fact that the great philosophers down through the ages represent some of the most brilliant minds this planet has produced, I agree with crashfrog that it is something of a tragedy that these minds have concentrated on questions of at best limited relevance.
Most of the scientifically-minded people on this forum take a more Popperian (another philosopher, although a "philosopher of science" - set a thief to catch a thief, n'est-ce pas?) approach - albeit modified in the details (strict falsificationism doesn't appear to be completely valid, either). Popper's criteria, used by science in the main for long periods before he succinctly articulated what we were doing, includes falsification, testability, and replicability, among other things. We use this methodology (for lack of a better term) because it garners valid - albeit tentative - statements about the world (Life, the Universe, and Everything). Philosophy, on the other hand, can NEVER generate anything more than a subjective idea about the world - not a fact about the world. Since facts are the things that can get us run over when we are crossing a street, a philosophical approach to "knowing" is, as I previously stated, akin to navel gazing, and about as useful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Kitsune, posted 10-23-2007 6:40 PM Kitsune has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 117 of 142 (430291)
10-24-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by JavaMan
10-24-2007 7:59 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I'm imparting knowledge to them, but it isn't knowledge that can be investigated scientifically or analysed logically (and it would be missing the point even if you tried).
Why do you say it can't be investigated scientifically?
It isn't science that helps them decide, or logic (although they are likely to use reasoning of some kind).
Why do you say that science - empiricism - couldn't help them decide?
It's not a scientific hypothesis, so it can't really be tested scientifically, and it's not a logical proposition so I can't evaluate it using propositional logic.
Why do you say that the condition of humanity isn't a scientific question?
You're just setting some things, arbitrarily, outside the scientific purview with no indication of why we should believe that is the case. The form and function of poetry could, and has, been empirically studied simply by reading and writing a number of poems of different structure and seeing how people react to them.
Empiricism similarly gives us a guide as to whether or not we've correctly identified moral principles that give rise to greater good, and the extent to which they are doing so.
Similarly, sociology can inform us as to the human condition - not based on the legendary observations of one Hindu prince, but on empirical observation of humanity in its current state.
All of these examples have one thing in common, they're about our subjective experience of the world rather than about the world per se.
We study subjective experiences in the sciences every day, particularly in medicine, because people can communicate their subjective experiences to researchers. Being subjective doesn't set something outside the purview of empiricism.
There's no reason to arbitrarily set things "out of bounds" of science, particularly because to be out of bounds of science is to be out of bounds of any means of distinguishing truth from fiction. There's nothing in the "personal sphere of experience" that's worth abandoning truth and embracing fantasy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by JavaMan, posted 10-24-2007 7:59 AM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by JavaMan, posted 10-25-2007 8:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 118 of 142 (430411)
10-25-2007 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Damouse
10-23-2007 11:46 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
quote:
What an interesting response. Im kinda sad we drove you out.
Well, it just goes to show you that most people really don't like it when their cherished faith-based beliefs are critically examined and when their bad arguments are pointed out.
Isn't it sad that an obviously bright, thoughtful person like LindaLou thinks it is somehow undesireable to use critical thinking.
She is doomed to be wrong about a lot of stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Damouse, posted 10-23-2007 11:46 PM Damouse has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 119 of 142 (430413)
10-25-2007 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by petrophysics1
10-23-2007 7:10 PM


Re: On thought and telepathy
Petro, I wondered if you missed this message?
#55

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by petrophysics1, posted 10-23-2007 7:10 PM petrophysics1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by petrophysics1, posted 10-25-2007 9:16 AM nator has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 120 of 142 (430421)
10-25-2007 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
10-24-2007 10:36 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
We study subjective experiences in the sciences every day, particularly in medicine, because people can communicate their subjective experiences to researchers. Being subjective doesn't set something outside the purview of empiricism.
If science and empiricism were interchangeable terms I might have to concede the argument. But fortunately for me, they're not .
Like you, I'm an empiricist. I believe that we can only acquire knowledge through the five senses (and 'through reflection on the ideas we acquire through the senses' to paraphrase Locke).
In all three of the examples I provided, knowledge was being acquired empirically, but not through scientific investigation or deductive logic.
At the core of the empiricist view of how we make judgements is a lack of certainty. When we make a decision we use our past experience (and maybe some reasoning) to make a best guess, to determine which of many claims is most probably true.
Science brings a rigorous methodology to this inductive method of acquiring knowledge, insisting on hypothesis generation and testing, data analysis, replicability, etc. to firm up the probabilities. It's very powerful and very useful, but not necessarily appropriate, or practical, to use in our day-to-day life.
Let's go back to my first example.
Teaching someone to write better poetry
Based on my own experience of writing poetry I suggest changes to my student; she accepts or rejects my suggestions, using her own experience and some poetic experimentation as guidance. That all sounds perfectly empirical to me. Why do you think doing a formal scientific experiment would make it more empirical? Aren't you just fetishizing the formal techniques of science?

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 10-24-2007 10:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by crashfrog, posted 10-25-2007 3:31 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024