Is Intent Necessary for a Purpose to Life? [Archive] - Page 2

Willamena

23-06-2006, 13:31

I get you, but for some reason, my brain keeps insisting that the things you listed as examples of the "unreal" are really...real. (Uh-oh, we're veering into PDQ Bach territory; we'll soon starting singing songs about "really real reality." ;))

But do you get the difference in what I'm saying? Let's take god as an example of a thing we can't know anything about. And let's assume for the sake of the point that god exists. You seem to be saying that we cannot know anything about god one way or the other because god is supernatural -- implication: we can only know about natural things, so a thing we cannot know about is supernatural.
Right! Sort of.. we can know one thing, we can know the supernatural can be out there, because we have an unknown/unknowable of our own, inside us, each of us. Our spirit, symbolised in 'self'. (I had some fun stating in another thread that "'I am' is the evidence of god," but ended up just upsetting people who thought I was insisting I was god.) Even if the entire world out there can be discovered, this unknowable wthin us cannot be denied or ignored without being untrue to ourselves.

Of course, that never stopped us before. ("Know thyself," people!)

I am trying to say that god is natural, i.e. within the concept of nature, and thus, can be comprehended. Right now, we do not have a means of proving god, so, by the way I use the words, we cannot know that god exists, because we cannot demonstrate, show, or prove that god exists. But we can still believe that god exists, which can be another way of comprehending that is not dependent on proof. The downside of belief is that it cannot be shared in its most direct form.

Now, because I do not think there is a limit to what we are capable of comprehending, there may come a time when the truth about god is known. But right now it is not, and it seems that we have not yet discovered how to translate belief in god into knowledge about god. That does not imply, however, that nobody ever will discover how to do that. So, for now, god is unknowable.

But, for me, that does not mean he is not solidly within the realm of nature.
My response will be to point out some inconsistencies between what you said and what is said about god (hopefully answers Bruarong's question as well):
- God is spirit (John 4:24). When I was reading about such things many moons ago, many diverse books agreed on this point.
- Spirit is immaterial, which is another way of saying unknowable since we can only know the material world. It is not the animator of life, the soul (got that bit from Grave_n_idle), but an immaterial thing 'a part of' or coinciding with everything in the universe.
- Most talk about mental concepts, social relationships (like morality), feelings, etc., when they talk about spiritual matters. Matters involving these are the indicators of spirit.
- Spirit is not able to affect change in the material world. We cannot directly know or experience the immaterial, but we experience changes in feelings, in relationships, that we attribute to spirit. What is happening (from my own experience) is not a change affected by spirit, but a change affected by our bodies in recognition of spirit.
- All we can know of spirit are the mental symbols we create for it ('self', 'god', 'angel', etc.), the images. Those are natural.
- The idea of a thing is not the thing the idea is about. Theists have a natural, mental 'Image of God' that we can carry with us, that we can build a relationships around and even interact with in the form of spoken prayer, but the image we hold is not god itself. The image portrayed in the Bible is not god itself.

None of this indicates a thing that can be known.

EDIT: I'm not trying to persuade you that I'm right. I'm just trying to explain how I think.
That's okay. This particular argument you made wouldn't persuade me, anyway. ;)

Well, okay, I was trying to avoid attracting the attention of the hard-core materialists/realists out there, but yes, I do think there is a likelihood that the content of those things is real in and of itself. But I have a feeling this would be where our concepts of what constitutes "real" would diverge quite a bit. However, do we really want to get into something quite that esoteric? I'll have to limber up for that.
I'm not too thrilled about going there, either, especially as it's not any direction I was heading. (Kind of in the opposite direction, actually *points over THERE*.)

But, I thought we had both said that the content of the idea (let's call the content 'thought', shall we? to differentiate it from the idea), the thing the idea is about, can be something real or unreal... The idea is not the thought. The idea exists in reality, it is natural, but the thought can be real or unreal according to whether it corresponds to something in reality. That is where "unnatural" comes from, I think --an accompaniment to the "unreal" thought.

Nothing esoteric about that. ;) My only point was really that, although the unreal thought has no corresponding thing in reality, it is in itself an unreal thing that exists.

Yes, but see above. Also, I think it fairly obvious that ideas are real. Even though they are not objects, they certainly have the same impact on the object world as objects do.
Okay, but the thought doesn’t have the same sort of impact as the idea. Its impact is a response of the body to it through perception.

NeoThalia

23-06-2006, 13:34

Depends on what you imagine is so "accurate" about the image of God that we create. Does it accurately describe God? Or does it accurately express our relationship to the image of God that we create?

No theologian worth his salt will ever claim the "face of God" to be equivalent with the "essence of God."

No description of God can ever be accurate because God by definition transcends all things.

NT

Willamena

23-06-2006, 14:17

No theologian worth his salt will ever claim the "face of God" to be equivalent with the "essence of God."

No description of God can ever be accurate because God by definition transcends all things.

NT
Just so.

Linux and the X

23-06-2006, 14:24

Of couse humans have creators. In english, they're called mommy and daddy.

Bruarong

23-06-2006, 14:29

Heh, I'd like to know that one as well.

Here's a few assumptions I think are needed to discuss this:

1. The supernatural is not fiction.
2. The supernatural exists independently of our imagination.
3. Our ideas about the supernatural are accurate.

Willamena is asserting that whether god does exist or not, that knowledge of his/her/its existence cannot be known. In other words, the supernatural might be an invention or exist independently of human thought, but that we cannot know either way. And I was asking her why she thought this, because it seems to me as though one needed at least some basic knowledge of the supernatural before we can say whether we can know it or not.

I think that we actually don't need the assumptions that you listed above. We simply need some knowledge of the supernatural before we can determine whether it is possible know it. (that is if we are going to call our decision a conclusion, not an assumption).

If, on the other hand, Wilamena is only interested in making an assertion that has no basis on knowledge or reason, well, I cannot really argue against that. Everyone has a right to make assertions that are not supported by knowledge or reasonable arguments. But I suspect that she has her reasons......

Now don't get me wrong. I'm a faithless heathen. I do not believe in anything supernatural what so ever, but I'm also aware that I can't disprove the supernatural. I am, in fact, incapable of examining the supernatural, so I can't claim it's impossible that it's possible or impossible to know about it.

How do you know that you are incapable of examining the supernatural? On what basis do you claim this? Perhaps you cannot examine the supernatural right now, but how do you know that you are not *capable* of such an examination? On what basis do you make such an assertion?

For all I know, I might be a butterfly dreaming I'm a man. I doubt it, but I'm in no position to know.

How do you *know* that you are in no position to know? I might agree with you on this point, but I will not until I see your basis for such an assertion.

Bruarong

23-06-2006, 14:46

Depends on what you imagine is so "accurate" about the image of God that we create. Does it accurately depict God? Or does it accurately express our relationship to the image of God that we create?

How can we distinguish between 'knowledge' of our own invention, and 'knowledge' that we discover?

Surely only on the assumption that there is no knowledge that can be discovered--or?

In other words, how do you know that we humans are creating the image of God, instead of recognising what God reveals to us?

Willamena

23-06-2006, 15:40

Willamena is asserting that whether god does exist or not, that knowledge of his/her/its existence cannot be known. In other words, the supernatural might be an invention or exist independently of human thought, but that we cannot know either way. And I was asking her why she thought this, because it seems to me as though one needed at least some basic knowledge of the supernatural before we can say whether we can know it or not.

I think that we actually don't need the assumptions that you listed above. We simply need some knowledge of the supernatural before we can determine whether it is possible know it. (that is if we are going to call our decision a conclusion, not an assumption).

That's a very good point. So we differentiate between "knowing", i.e. the conscious process that allows us to recall information from memory or look it up in a book, and the information processes in the mind that are subconscious (below our threshold of awareness). Believing, as such, is a subconscious processing of information; we do not consciously choose to believe in something. The generation of mythic symbols, like the image of God, is another such subconscious processing.

I don't have all the answers, so I hope that suffices.

How do you know that you are incapable of examining the supernatural? On what basis do you claim this? Perhaps you cannot examine the supernatural right now, but how do you know that you are not *capable* of such an examination? On what basis do you make such an assertion?
I know that the question wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond. The basis of the statement that we are incapable of examining the supernatural is because it is immaterial and we are material, our bodies are material, our processers of perception are material, our machines are material.

Willamena

23-06-2006, 15:46

How can we distinguish between 'knowledge' of our own invention, and 'knowledge' that we discover?

Surely only on the assumption that there is no knowledge that can be discovered--or?

In other words, how do you know that we humans are creating the image of God, instead of recognising what God reveals to us?
We don't. Recognition is a subconscious process. The recognition of a thing is our creation.

Similization

23-06-2006, 16:26

<Snip> it seems to me as though one needed at least some basic knowledge of the supernatural before we can say whether we can know it or not. Which is exactly what I thought. It's slightly paradoxical.I think that we actually don't need the assumptions that you listed above. We simply need some knowledge of the supernatural before we can determine whether it is possible know it. (that is if we are going to call our decision a conclusion, not an assumption).Ok, assumption 2 was superfluous.

It still comes down to our ability to know about the supernatural. If we can know of it in some way, whether it be us creating it by believing it, revelation or some other method.
Unless I missed something, we'd have to understand the exact process, becore we can make any claims about the level of knowledge we can have of the supernatural. If we can know about it, we can know about it.. Right?
So why shouldn't we able to know all about it?But I suspect that she has her reasons......I wouldn't know. Last time I checked, W was fairly consistent, logical & unbiased.How do you know that you are incapable of examining the supernatural? You answered that question yourself. I'm incapable at present.

Regardless, this moves the debate into the absurd. For example, the invisible friend you had as a child, might actually be imagining you, me, everything we've ever known & a good deal more. How can we be sure that isn't the case? Can you somehow prove you didn't have an invisible friend as a child, for example?

It's the trouble with absurd ideas (and the great thing about them as well). As soon as we shift the burden of proof, anything's possible & always will be possible - because we can always change the criteria we set up.

If we could definitively prove deity X didn't create the universe, for example, people would simply claim the deity X caused whatever cause caused the universe (Loving that sentence).
It's what the supernatural, or the imagination, is all about; a method of disregarding reality. It is to me, at least.

Just take our debate about knowing the unknowable here. Even if we somehow ended up agreeing that the unknowable is unknowable, I could simply imagine a nice little entity that could know about the unknowable, and somehow pass on the info to me. Whose to say I'd be wrong?

Hmm.. I think I smell my brain melting. That bubbling sound in my eyeballs leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Always happens whenever I start pretending other peoples' phantasmagoria isn't fiction.

Muravyets

23-06-2006, 16:39

How about a limit of "everything that can be known"?
Nope. I do not presume limits that cannot be shown to me. Using the spherical earth as an analogy, I do not accept that there is nothing beyond the horizon. I base this non-acceptance on the fact that I cannot walk to the horizon. Even if I walk up to the biggest landmark on the horizon, it will no longer be on the horizon, and the horizon will appear to be just as far away as it was before I started walking. When I contemplate the horizon of knowledge, beyond which is "the unknown," what I am really looking at is the limit of my knowledge, the limit of everything that I can know at this given point in my existence. There is no evidence to suggest that I am looking at the limit of knowledge itself, the limit of what can be known.

Willamena

23-06-2006, 16:54

Nope. I do not presume limits that cannot be shown to me. Using the spherical earth as an analogy, I do not accept that there is nothing beyond the horizon. I base this non-acceptance on the fact that I cannot walk to the horizon. Even if I walk up to the biggest landmark on the horizon, it will no longer be on the horizon, and the horizon will appear to be just as far away as it was before I started walking. When I contemplate the horizon of knowledge, beyond which is "the unknown," what I am really looking at is the limit of my knowledge, the limit of everything that I can know at this given point in my existence. There is no evidence to suggest that I am looking at the limit of knowledge itself, the limit of what can be known.
The unreachable horizon a good analogy of the unknowable. Thanks. :)

What is beyond the horizon will always be unreachable. The limit is set by the nature of the thing, not by us. No matter where we stand, no matter how far we walk, the horizon does not change its nature.

The concept of supernatural is directly related to our faculty of awareness that we call consciousness. As we look out at the world through the window of our eyes, to quote Paul Simon, we are aware of things around us, we are aware of our body, we are aware of things in our mind, but always there is a "we" who is aware of these things whom we cannot be aware of.

The limit is set by the nature of the thing.

Muravyets

23-06-2006, 17:53

Right! Sort of.. we can know one thing, we can know the supernatural can be out there, because we have an unknown/unknowable of our own, inside us, each of us. Our spirit, symbolised in 'self'. (I had some fun stating in another thread that "'I am' is the evidence of god," but ended up just upsetting people who thought I was insisting I was god.) Even if the entire world out there can be discovered, this unknowable wthin us cannot be denied or ignored without being untrue to ourselves.

Of course, that never stopped us before. ("Know thyself," people!)
See, though, I disagree with your assertion that the inner mystery is unknowable. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I dislike the word "unknowable," just like I dislike the words "supernatural" and "unnatural."

I do not believe that that anything is unnatural or supernatural. Likewise, I do not believe that anything is unknowable in the sense that it is guaranteed never to be known, comprehended, understood. "Unknown" =/= "unknowable." I can only say that a thing is unknowable only within the context of current information/understanding about it, and even that will vary greatly from person to person.

So I simply do not accept that it is not possible to know -- meaning to comprehend, understand -- our own spirit.

To know it in the sense of being able to prove beyond doubt its existence and nature to someone else, no, that we cannot do at this time, but that does not mean that no one ever will be able to do it.

My response will be to point out some inconsistencies between what you said and what is said about god (hopefully answers Bruarong's question as well):
- God is spirit (John 4:24). When I was reading about such things many moons ago, many diverse books agreed on this point.
- Spirit is immaterial, which is another way of saying unknowable since we can only know the material world. It is not the animator of life, the soul (got that bit from Grave_n_idle), but an immaterial thing 'a part of' or coinciding with everything in the universe.
- Most talk about mental concepts, social relationships (like morality), feelings, etc., when they talk about spiritual matters. Matters involving these are the indicators of spirit.
- Spirit is not able to affect change in the material world. We cannot directly know or experience the immaterial, but we experience changes in feelings, in relationships, that we attribute to spirit. What is happening (from my own experience) is not a change affected by spirit, but a change affected by our bodies in recognition of spirit.
- All we can know of spirit are the mental symbols we create for it ('self', 'god', 'angel', etc.), the images. Those are natural.
- The idea of a thing is not the thing the idea is about. Theists have a natural, mental 'Image of God' that we can carry with us, that we can build a relationships around and even interact with in the form of spoken prayer, but the image we hold is not god itself. The image portrayed in the Bible is not god itself.

None of this indicates a thing that can be known.
The only inconsistency that I see here is that you seem to be ignoring my assertion that immaterial things are nevertheless real and natural. You don't have to agree with the assertion, but obviously, based on my assertions about reality and about knowability, then I would conclude that all of the things you list are natural even though they are immaterial, and are knowable even though they are not known now.

I suggest that the following statements are assumptions:

"Spirit is immaterial, which is another way of saying unknowable since we can only know the material world."
We have no proof of the limits of knowledge or the human ability to know things. Therefore, there is no basis for saying what we can know and what we cannot know. I said earlier that "I can only know what I can prove." The cute twist here is that we cannot prove that we are simply and ultimately not able to know the immaterial. So I cannot accept a definitive statement that we can only know the material world as proof that we can never know spirit.

"Most talk about mental concepts, social relationships (like morality), feelings, etc., when they talk about spiritual matters. Matters involving these are the indicators of spirit."
I do not accept that such things are indicators of spirit. There are perfectly good, totally pragmatic, non-spiritual reasons for all such things. Feelings can be merely physiological responses to stimuli. Social relationships and morality can be totally pragmatic and can vary wildly from culture to culture. Yes, I have seen how such things have been associated with the concept of spirit, but I have never seen a persuasive argument that shows that this association is anything but an arbirtrary decision of human beings. I have never seen an argument that would persuade me that spirit is inherently moral or feeling in any way at all. The mere fact that such things could exist and function equally well in a totally non-spiritual context causes me to reject them as indicators of spirit.

"Spirit is not able to affect change in the material world."
Now, this is an inconsistency. First you say we cannot know anything about spirit, but now you say that we know what spirit cannot do. If we cannot observe spirit, measure spirit, or gather any evidence about spirit, then how do we know that it is not able to affect change in the material world? For all we know, it could be doing exactly that every single day.

That's okay. This particular argument you made wouldn't persuade me, anyway. ;)
If you were a certain very close friend of mine who would get the joke and respond appropriately, I would say "Bite me, bitch." :p ;)

I'm not too thrilled about going there, either, especially as it's not any direction I was heading. (Kind of in the opposite direction, actually *points over THERE*.)

But, I thought we had both said that the content of the idea (let's call the content 'thought', shall we? to differentiate it from the idea), the thing the idea is about, can be something real or unreal... The idea is not the thought. The idea exists in reality, it is natural, but the thought can be real or unreal according to whether it corresponds to something in reality. That is where "unnatural" comes from, I think --an accompaniment to the "unreal" thought.

Nothing esoteric about that. ;) My only point was really that, although the unreal thought has no corresponding thing in reality, it is in itself an unreal thing that exists.
To say that a thought does not correspond to something in reality is to assume that we already know the entire content/structure/nature of reality. Not very long ago, it was considered impossible for a person to sit in their home in Des Moines and observe something happening simultaneously in Dusseldorf. People who imagined that humans beings would have the capability to do such a thing were pooh-poohed as believers in the supernatural. Today, we call it a satellite link.

Point A = Not able to see all the way from Des Moines to Dusseldorf. Point Z = Able to see all the way from Des Moines to Dusseldorf. 100 years of science and technology = connect the dots, la-la-la. How the imagined gets realized may not always be predictable and may come in a form other than what was wished for, but that does not mean it is not realizable.

And who knows? We may not be done with that experiment yet.

What other supernatural things have human being imagined? Being able to see inside a living human body to see how it works and what's wrong with it without killing it. Being able to visit other planets. Being able to access the power locked inside the basic structures of the material world. To have, instantly available at our whim, all the accumulated knowledge of the world.

Oh, yeah, and we imagine spirit, too. As far as I'm concerned that means it's on the "to do" list.

Okay, but the thought doesn’t have the same sort of impact as the idea. Its impact is a response of the body to it through perception.
To argue that fully, I'd have to get esoteric, and let's not. Let's just say, semantically, I do not draw such a sharp line between "thought" and "idea."

Muravyets

23-06-2006, 18:02

The unreachable horizon a good analogy of the unknowable. Thanks. :)

What is beyond the horizon will always be unreachable. The limit is set by the nature of the thing, not by us. No matter where we stand, no matter how far we walk, the horizon does not change its nature.

The concept of supernatural is directly related to our faculty of awareness that we call consciousness. As we look out at the world through the window of our eyes, to quote Paul Simon, we are aware of things around us, we are aware of our body, we are aware of things in our mind, but always there is a "we" who is aware of these things whom we cannot be aware of.

The limit is set by the nature of the thing.
I disagree about the nature of this metaphorical horizon. I believe this horizon, this limit, is actually set by us. To say that the limit is tied to consciousness is to imply a limit to consciousness. I know of no evidence to suggest that there is an inherent limit to consciousness.

With apologies to Paul Simon, I would edit "a 'we' ... whom we cannot be aware of" to "a 'we' ... whom we are not aware of." I have never seen any argument that could convince me that we cannot comprehend the "we"/"I", spirit, or any other thing that we currently perceive to be a mystery.

EDIT: I would also point out that this horizon is not a bubble that we carry around with us. I stand at Point A. The horizon is the limit of my ability to perceive. Let's call it Point B. Everything between here and there is available to me to know. I walk to Point B. Now, I can see as far as Point C, and a whole new set of things is now available for me to know that were not available before. They were beyond the limits of my ability to perceive. Now they are within that limit.

Now, here's the paradox: The horizon backward is farther than the horizon forward. I do not forget what I knew before. By traveling from A to B, my knowledge base has been expanded, and so has the limit of my ability to perceive because now I can see more.

You seem to be saying that there is boundary beyond which my knowledge base cannot expand, but I have never seen any evidence of such a boundary.

The Dangerous Maybe

23-06-2006, 22:20

So, rather than making truth dependent on knowledge, you are making it dependent upon claims of knowledge?

No, I am making it dependent on fact. Knowledge is based on truth, not the other way around.

I never said it "is true because we have limited understanding."

You stated that claims of the world being flat coincided with what we knew of the world, and for the time they were true. That can only mean that their limited understanding would be the only thing that would make the flat earth concept true.

Willamena

23-06-2006, 23:25

See, though, I disagree with your assertion that the inner mystery is unknowable. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I dislike the word "unknowable," just like I dislike the words "supernatural" and "unnatural."

I do not believe that that anything is unnatural or supernatural. Likewise, I do not believe that anything is unknowable in the sense that it is guaranteed never to be known, comprehended, understood. "Unknown" =/= "unknowable." I can only say that a thing is unknowable only within the context of current information/understanding about it, and even that will vary greatly from person to person.

So I simply do not accept that it is not possible to know -- meaning to comprehend, understand -- our own spirit.

To know it in the sense of being able to prove beyond doubt its existence and nature to someone else, no, that we cannot do at this time, but that does not mean that no one ever will be able to do it.

The only inconsistency that I see here is that you seem to be ignoring my assertion that immaterial things are nevertheless real and natural. You don't have to agree with the assertion, but obviously, based on my assertions about reality and about knowability, then I would conclude that all of the things you list are natural even though they are immaterial, and are knowable even though they are not known now.
I just seem to be digging myself a bigger hole, don't I? I see where I made my mistake, though (my thoughts are too influenced by yours). The unknown/unknowable is not referring to anything that is unknown or unknowable, but a particular thing (more on that later).

Dreams (the content of dreams) are immaterial, but I had them falling under the "relationships between stuff", so I didn't disagree. I only ignored it because I agree with it. Natural, to me, does not mean material, and I'm sorry if I implied that it does.

See, I was talking about real and unreal when you brought up the point of immaterial and natural. You gave some examples of immaterial things, you said, "Imaginings, hallucinations, illusions, ideals, dreams, emotions, etc, etc -- all are real, even though they have no physical form." And then, "We dream -- the content of the dream is not real, but the dream is real." I replied that the content of the dream is what I was referring to, as an example of unreal. And yes, the content of dreams are immaterial (so I must refine some of my statements made above and below; thanks).

These immaterial things are natural, and some of them are real, some are unreal. Natural things are defined by identifiable properties (a nature), and the concepts and dreams certainly have that. The "unknowable" of the supernatural is in that sense: it is unidentifiable. That we can never know it is not our fault, but its nature.

If we look at nature objectively, from the perspective of an observer, then no parts of it are unidentifiable; some parts are real, some unreal, some parts are material and some immaterial. But when you switch to a subjective perspective, things become unknown, because you are taking into account a consciousness and how it views the world, at least if you accept the models of consciousness put forth by learned people, and they seem to be appropriately descriptive. Our ability to be aware can make us aware of everything except itself. That creates a widening sphere of awareness stretching out through mind and body and world. At the centre of this sphere is the unknown/unknowable. This is where religion either places the spirit or identifies with the spirit, a thing that unquestionably is but only to 'us'.

I suggest that the following statements are assumptions:

"Spirit is immaterial, which is another way of saying unknowable since we can only know the material world."
We have no proof of the limits of knowledge or the human ability to know things. Therefore, there is no basis for saying what we can know and what we cannot know. I said earlier that "I can only know what I can prove." The cute twist here is that we cannot prove that we are simply and ultimately not able to know the immaterial. So I cannot accept a definitive statement that we can only know the material world as proof that we can never know spirit.
Yeah, I messed this up. What I should have said is that "Spirit is immaterial and supernatural, which is another way of saying unknowable," and left it at that. Blame it on senility.

"Most talk about mental concepts, social relationships (like morality), feelings, etc., when they talk about spiritual matters. Matters involving these are the indicators of spirit."
I do not accept that such things are indicators of spirit. There are perfectly good, totally pragmatic, non-spiritual reasons for all such things. Feelings can be merely physiological responses to stimuli. Social relationships and morality can be totally pragmatic and can vary wildly from culture to culture. Yes, I have seen how such things have been associated with the concept of spirit, but I have never seen a persuasive argument that shows that this association is anything but an arbirtrary decision of human beings. I have never seen an argument that would persuade me that spirit is inherently moral or feeling in any way at all. The mere fact that such things could exist and function equally well in a totally non-spiritual context causes me to reject them as indicators of spirit.
There are non-spiritual explanations for everything. The statement wasn't suggesting that spirit is the cause of those things, but that they are indicators that it exists --it's an interpretive matter of what they mean.

"Spirit is not able to affect change in the material world."
Now, this is an inconsistency. First you say we cannot know anything about spirit, but now you say that we know what spirit cannot do. If we cannot observe spirit, measure spirit, or gather any evidence about spirit, then how do we know that it is not able to affect change in the material world? For all we know, it could be doing exactly that every single day.
Not really an inconsistency. This is a list of the things that is said about god/spirit, and that is something said (in fact, it is the definition of spirit).

Measurement and objective evidence is impossible for any immaterial thing, and since no way has yet been devised to measure the spirit, I am content to let the statement rest.

To say that a thought does not correspond to something in reality is to assume that we already know the entire content/structure/nature of reality. Not very long ago, it was considered impossible for a person to sit in their home in Des Moines and observe something happening simultaneously in Dusseldorf. People who imagined that humans beings would have the capability to do such a thing were pooh-poohed as believers in the supernatural. Today, we call it a satellite link.

Point A = Not able to see all the way from Des Moines to Dusseldorf. Point Z = Able to see all the way from Des Moines to Dusseldorf. 100 years of science and technology = connect the dots, la-la-la. How the imagined gets realized may not always be predictable and may come in a form other than what was wished for, but that does not mean it is not realizable.

And who knows? We may not be done with that experiment yet.
In other words, to say that we imagine something is not to say it doesn't actually exist (or won't). I'm good with that. But you make the context for determining the unreal the comparison to objective reality; that's why I specified earlier that unreal belongs to the other context, that of the individual who cannot verify what is actual. For the people "not very long ago," it was unreal.

What other supernatural things have human being imagined? Being able to see inside a living human body to see how it works and what's wrong with it without killing it. Being able to visit other planets. Being able to access the power locked inside the basic structures of the material world. To have, instantly available at our whim, all the accumulated knowledge of the world.

Oh, yeah, and we imagine spirit, too. As far as I'm concerned that means it's on the "to do" list.
I hope you're not suggesting that the unreal is supernatural. :)

I admire your vision.

Ooh! You've answered your own question from above. The indicators of spirit are those things we image about spirit. Symbols, either from conscious imagination, or mythic ones from the sub-conscious.

To argue that fully, I'd have to get esoteric, and let's not. Let's just say, semantically, I do not draw such a sharp line between "thought" and "idea."
I don't either, really.

I disagree about the nature of this metaphorical horizon. I believe this horizon, this limit, is actually set by us. To say that the limit is tied to consciousness is to imply a limit to consciousness. I know of no evidence to suggest that there is an inherent limit to consciousness.
The limit of the horizon is set by its nature. It only exists because of our perception of it, but that does not deny its particular nature.

Consciousness is the body's ability to be aware of things. I can think of quite a few limitations to that, not the least of which is distance in both time and space.

With apologies to Paul Simon, I would edit "a 'we' ... whom we cannot be aware of" to "a 'we' ... whom we are not aware of." I have never seen any argument that could convince me that we cannot comprehend the "we"/"I", spirit, or any other thing that we currently perceive to be a mystery.

EDIT: I would also point out that this horizon is not a bubble that we carry around with us. I stand at Point A. The horizon is the limit of my ability to perceive. Let's call it Point B. Everything between here and there is available to me to know. I walk to Point B. Now, I can see as far as Point C, and a whole new set of things is now available for me to know that were not available before. They were beyond the limits of my ability to perceive. Now they are within that limit.

Now, here's the paradox: The horizon backward is farther than the horizon forward. I do not forget what I knew before. By traveling from A to B, my knowledge base has been expanded, and so has the limit of my ability to perceive because now I can see more.
But the horizon is not all the things in between it and you. The horizon is just the horizon.

You seem to be saying that there is boundary beyond which my knowledge base cannot expand, but I have never seen any evidence of such a boundary.
Hence, your agnosticism. And I have no evidence that anything exists that is not limited, except in a metaphorical sense, hence mine.

I want to apologize for apparent inconsistencies. I do not have the best memory, and every time I approach these arguments I am starting from scratch and reformulating them all over again.

Willamena

23-06-2006, 23:37

No, I am making it dependent on fact. Knowledge is based on truth, not the other way around.

You stated that claims of the world being flat coincided with what we knew of the world, and for the time they were true. That can only mean that their limited understanding would be the only thing that would make the flat earth concept true.
Ahh... that's what you meant.

I was not talking about claims but beliefs. Their beliefs were formulated on the information they had, not on lack of information. Their beliefs are not the truth, they are beliefs.

What is true was the information (facts) on which they placed their beliefs.

What is more true that we know now, that they didn't? That the earth is round? What if 1000 years from now that archaic idea has been replaced by a better model of the earth, a world-view that takes into account the bending of space relative to masses, and everyone knows this and takes it for granted. Is it "more true" than what we know? Does that mean that we have based our belief that the earth is round on a lack of information?

The Dangerous Maybe

24-06-2006, 02:09

Ahh... that's what you meant.

I was not talking about claims but beliefs. Their beliefs were formulated on the information they had, not on lack of information. Their beliefs are not the truth, they are beliefs.

What is true was the information (facts) on which they placed their beliefs.

I have no argument with this.

What is more true that we know now, that they didn't? That the earth is round? What if 1000 years from now that archaic idea has been replaced by a better model of the earth, a world-view that takes into account the bending of space relative to masses, and everyone knows this and takes it for granted. Is it "more true" than what we know? Does that mean that we have based our belief that the earth is round on a lack of information?

I think that, 1000 years from now, we will have separated ourselves from the concept of truth, or at least as we think of it now.

Muravyets

24-06-2006, 03:22

I just seem to be digging myself a bigger hole, don't I? I see where I made my mistake, though (my thoughts are too influenced by yours).
Excuuuuuuse me?

The unknown/unknowable is not referring to anything that is unknown or unknowable, but a particular thing (more on that later).

Dreams (the content of dreams) are immaterial, but I had them falling under the "relationships between stuff", so I didn't disagree. I only ignored it because I agree with it. Natural, to me, does not mean material, and I'm sorry if I implied that it does.

See, I was talking about real and unreal when you brought up the point of immaterial and natural. You gave some examples of immaterial things, you said, "Imaginings, hallucinations, illusions, ideals, dreams, emotions, etc, etc -- all are real, even though they have no physical form." And then, "We dream -- the content of the dream is not real, but the dream is real." I replied that the content of the dream is what I was referring to, as an example of unreal. And yes, the content of dreams are immaterial (so I must refine some of my statements made above and below; thanks).

These immaterial things are natural, and some of them are real, some are unreal. Natural things are defined by identifiable properties (a nature), and the concepts and dreams certainly have that. The "unknowable" of the supernatural is in that sense: it is unidentifiable. That we can never know it is not our fault, but its nature.
I'm sorry, but I can't accept this idea, and I'm not liking it solely because of that word "never." What I was saying is that, because, I do not believe that there is anything that can never be known, I do not accept a condition of being "unknowable" or "unidentifiable" as a criterion for the supernatural. Further, because I do not believe that there is anything that can never be known, I am inclined to disbelieve in the very conditions "unknowable," "unidentifiable," and "supernatural" themselves.

What I think it boils down to is that, because you are approaching the situation from a subjective personal theoretical viewpoint, you are suggesting that "the supernatural" is whatever a person can never know, no matter how they study it. You are saying that the unknown condition is inherent in the thing.

But because I am approaching the situation from an objective personal theoretical viewpoint, I am suggesting that the fact that a person does not know something does not guarantee that that person is not able to know it. I am saying that the unknown condition is a reflection of the lack of present comprehension in the human observer or experiencer, not a trait of the thing being observed or experienced. I further suggest that lack of comprehension is not a permanent condition (for most people, at least) and that it is in our own power to expand our comprehension. I think that my approach is more objective and less personal than yours because, although I acknowledge that we can only know what we can perceive and comprehend at any given moment, I allow for the possibility that we can perceive and comprehend more, also at any given moment. I am not focusing solely on the individual, but rather putting the individual into a context of how I think human comprehension works as a phenomenon.

If we look at nature objectively, from the perspective of an observer, then no parts of it are unidentifiable; some parts are real, some unreal, some parts are material and some immaterial. But when you switch to a subjective perspective, things become unknown, because you are taking into account a consciousness and how it views the world, at least if you accept the models of consciousness put forth by learned people, and they seem to be appropriately descriptive. Our ability to be aware can make us aware of everything except itself. That creates a widening sphere of awareness stretching out through mind and body and world. At the centre of this sphere is the unknown/unknowable. This is where religion either places the spirit or identifies with the spirit, a thing that unquestionably is but only to 'us'.
Well, that's where I part ways with you. I do not believe that center of the sphere of awareness must always be unknown/unknowable. I think it is possible to know it. It may not be easy. It may not be obvious how to do it. We may only be able to do it accidentally or momentarily. But I still think it is possible to experience and comprehend "infinite outward and infinite in"* because there are reports of individuals who have experienced it, if only for a moment at a time. Such reports are found particularly in Buddhism and Tantrism, but also in other mystical disciplines.

* That's from a song, "Space/Time," by a rave band called The Shamen: "Infinite outward and infinite in / so where did infinity all begin / in the very same place where infinity ends / in the conscious minds and dreams of Shamen" Replace the name of the band with "humans," and it's rather close to where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I messed this up. What I should have said is that "Spirit is immaterial and supernatural, which is another way of saying unknowable," and left it at that. Blame it on senility.
I won't blame it on anything but the length, depth and complexity of our conversation. One can't keep track of every little thing. As I type blithely along, I'm reminded of a line from one of my favorite monologues by Saki: "Imagine the other day, just when I was doing my best to understand half the things I was saying..."

But I still disagree. :p

There are non-spiritual explanations for everything. The statement wasn't suggesting that spirit is the cause of those things, but that they are indicators that it exists --it's an interpretive matter of what they mean.
Yeah, well, I can apply any interpretation I like to anything I like. For me, as soon as evidence enters the picture, options start to get limited. If it can be non-spiritual, then, for me, it no longer functions as an indicator of spirit, no matter what others may say. They may be right, but they can't prove that they are, whereas, the non-spiritual explanation often can be proven. And in the game of knowledge, proof trumps interpretation.

Not really an inconsistency. This is a list of the things that is said about god/spirit, and that is something said (in fact, it is the definition of spirit).

Measurement and objective evidence is impossible for any immaterial thing, and since no way has yet been devised to measure the spirit, I am content to let the statement rest.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

In other words, to say that we imagine something is not to say it doesn't actually exist (or won't). I'm good with that. But you make the context for determining the unreal the comparison to objective reality; that's why I specified earlier that unreal belongs to the other context, that of the individual who cannot verify what is actual. For the people "not very long ago," it was unreal.
Again, the difference between us is that I put the individual who cannot verify into the wider context of the whole world. The individual who cannot verify a thing and therefore thinks it is "unreal" is telling the truth as he understands it, but he is still wrong. A thing that is real now, was most likely real 200 years ago, too, even if people didn't know it and didn't believe it. By your usage of the word, we could say, legitimately, that every human being on the planet lives in a world bounded and filled with unrealities, which are all the things we cannot verify, some of which are shared in common while others are personal to each person. But as far as i am concerned that just makes all of us mistaken.

If one does not believe that anything is "unreal," then one must live one's life with the expectation that one may be wrong about anything, that even one's most dearly held ideas or beliefs may be nothing but mistakes, and always be willing to say, "I do not know."

I hope you're not suggesting that the unreal is supernatural. :)
I should have put quotes around that "supernatural."

I admire your vision.
Oh, why, thank you. :)

Ooh! You've answered your own question from above. The indicators of spirit are those things we image about spirit. Symbols, either from conscious imagination, or mythic ones from the sub-conscious.
What we imagine about spirit may very well -- possibly even probably -- turn out to be accurate, if belief/imagining ever transforms into knowledge. But if you take the imaginings as indicators, then you would be straying into esotericism. And of course, that will raise the question of which imaginings will turn out to be accurate or if all of them will -- and if all, then...wow.

I don't either, really.

The limit of the horizon is set by its nature. It only exists because of our perception of it, but that does not deny its particular nature.

Consciousness is the body's ability to be aware of things. I can think of quite a few limitations to that, not the least of which is distance in both time and space.
I disagree. I see evidence of no such limitations, and I am not aware that there are any definitive studies on what the consciousness can and cannot do. By limiting consciousness by time and space and saying it is a function of the body, you seem to be attaching it to the function of the senses and central nervous system. But that would mean that we can only know things we experience physically. That would negate the purpose of imagination. In fact, it would imply that I should think the city of Paris is unreal because I've never experienced it with my senses. It would also imply that, not only should I not understand the essence of my "self" (your "unknowable" center), I should not even have a sense of self, because where does that exist in my body, or in time and space?

But the horizon is not all the things in between it and you. The horizon is just the horizon.
I didn't mean to suggest anything different. What I meant is that the horizon is my limitation of a moment, not a limitation of knowledge, reality, consciousness, the universe, or whathaveyou.

Hence, your agnosticism. And I have no evidence that anything exists that is not limited, except in a metaphorical sense, hence mine.
So, you assume a limit, while I assume no limit, and neither one of us has proof either way. :)

I want to apologize for apparent inconsistencies. I do not have the best memory, and every time I approach these arguments I am starting from scratch and reformulating them all over again.
:eek: I hope you're saving our posts for reference.

Muravyets

24-06-2006, 03:25

I think that, 1000 years from now, we will have separated ourselves from the concept of truth, or at least as we think of it now.
Sadly, there are many people in the world right now who have never been attached to the concept of truth.

Willamena

24-06-2006, 05:33

*snip*
I understand your position, and I guess I've failed to make mine clear.

I'll keep working at it. :D

Well, that's where I part ways with you. I do not believe that center of the sphere of awareness must always be unknown/unknowable.
Then I guess we don't define 'awareness' the same, either. :) And that's fine.

I think it is possible to know it. It may not be easy. It may not be obvious how to do it. We may only be able to do it accidentally or momentarily. But I still think it is possible to experience and comprehend "infinite outward and infinite in"* because there are reports of individuals who have experienced it, if only for a moment at a time. Such reports are found particularly in Buddhism and Tantrism, but also in other mystical disciplines.
Interesting. Do you have any references I can read?

Yeah, well, I can apply any interpretation I like to anything I like. For me, as soon as evidence enters the picture, options start to get limited. If it can be non-spiritual, then, for me, it no longer functions as an indicator of spirit, no matter what others may say. They may be right, but they can't prove that they are, whereas, the non-spiritual explanation often can be proven. And in the game of knowledge, proof trumps interpretation.
I agree, totally: a non-spiritual explanation of a thing or matter is not an indicator of spirit.

Good thing I wasn't talking about explanations. ;)

Again, the difference between us is that I put the individual who cannot verify into the wider context of the whole world. The individual who cannot verify a thing and therefore thinks it is "unreal" is telling the truth as he understands it, but he is still wrong.
When you take something out of context, it loses its meaning and gains a new one.

A thing that is real now, was most likely real 200 years ago, too, even if people didn't know it and didn't believe it. By your usage of the word, we could say, legitimately, that every human being on the planet lives in a world bounded and filled with unrealities, which are all the things we cannot verify, some of which are shared in common while others are personal to each person.
That presumes that I use only one usage for the word. But by that usage, yes, there are many things that are not real.

Oddly enough, it is the first usage for the word listed in my dictionary.

But as far as i am concerned that just makes all of us mistaken.

If one does not believe that anything is "unreal," then one must live one's life with the expectation that one may be wrong about anything, that even one's most dearly held ideas or beliefs may be nothing but mistakes, and always be willing to say, "I do not know."
I don't follow this at all. How are we mistaken by not being able to personally verify the existence of, for instance, imagined things? How is that a mistake on our part? We do take a lot of things for granted and on faith.

Did you mean to imply that the person who does believe that some things are "unreal" is exempt from being wrong?

I should have put quotes around that "supernatural."
Okay, but even without quotes, except for the mention of spirit none of those things are supernatural. :)

What we imagine about spirit may very well -- possibly even probably -- turn out to be accurate, if belief/imagining ever transforms into knowledge. But if you take the imaginings as indicators, then you would be straying into esotericism. And of course, that will raise the question of which imaginings will turn out to be accurate or if all of them will -- and if all, then...wow.
The imagining of spirit creates the image of spirit. Yes, it may very well be true, even if it never transforms into knowledge; of course, unless it does we'd never know for sure. It doesn't really matter.

I don't know much about esotericism, sorry.

I disagree. I see evidence of no such limitations, and I am not aware that there are any definitive studies on what the consciousness can and cannot do. By limiting consciousness by time and space and saying it is a function of the body, you seem to be attaching it to the function of the senses and central nervous system. But that would mean that we can only know things we experience physically. That would negate the purpose of imagination. In fact, it would imply that I should think the city of Paris is unreal because I've never experienced it with my senses. It would also imply that, not only should I not understand the essence of my "self" (your "unknowable" center), I should not even have a sense of self, because where does that exist in my body, or in time and space?
I can play the "I have no evidence" game, too. I have no evidence that says that consciousness is anything other than a function of the body. I think this should be a board game, with metal pieces, though, not the cheap plastic ones.

Consciousness is our faculty of awareness. We are aware of things that go on in the mind as well as in the body. In fact, our bodily senses produce a steady stream of thoughts, most of which we tune out. The times when we are unconscious is one limitation of consciousness. Things that are tuned out (sub-conscious) is another. Being dead is a good one. Heck, even being forgetful.

I didn't mean to suggest anything different. What I meant is that the horizon is my limitation of a moment, not a limitation of knowledge, reality, consciousness, the universe, or whathaveyou.
The horizon doesn't limit your moments... *scratches head*

Hence, your agnosticism. And I have no evidence that anything exists that is not limited, except in a metaphorical sense, hence mine.
So, you assume a limit, while I assume no limit, and neither one of us has proof either way. :)
Everything in nature is limited by its characteristics, by time and natural forces. If a thing had no limited shape, for instance, it would fill to infinity. If a thing did not die, it would live forever and life-forms would overrun the world. We humans are limited by our inhibitions, inabilities and discipline. Some of us are have limited mobility. There is evidence of these things, there really is.

Studies in consciousness: http://consc.net/biblio/6.html#6.1

The Dangerous Maybe

24-06-2006, 18:23

Sadly, there are many people in the world right now who have never been attached to the concept of truth.

They are freer spirits than we are.

Muravyets

25-06-2006, 00:48

They are freer spirits than we are.
Or they are liars.

Fedore

25-06-2006, 00:51

Mmmm.

E-philosophers. Mmm.

Muravyets

25-06-2006, 01:42

I understand your position, and I guess I've failed to make mine clear.

I'll keep working at it. :D
Speaking of limits, I think we're coming close to the limit of how far we can go in this conversation for now. We are dealing more and more with semantics. Reading what follows, it seems there are few points on which we just think differently, and the rest is just word usage. Everything else we understand and agree on. Not bad. I'm having a lot of fun.

I'm going to skip a bit and only touch on a few points.

Interesting. Do you have any references I can read?
Alan Watts' books on Zen Buddhism go into depth on the experience of enlightenment. His "The Way of Zen" is a good one. I have several books about Tibetan Tantrism and shamanism that discuss this, but I haven't looked at them for a long time. I will have to look up references and get back to you. It may take me a while.

That presumes that I use only one usage for the word. But by that usage, yes, there are many things that are not real.

Oddly enough, it is the first usage for the word listed in my dictionary.
I like to pick a usage and use that throughout a conversation. If I need to change usages, I try to make it clear that I'm doing that and which sentence contains which usage. But in general, I prefer to use only one usage at a time.

I don't follow this at all. How are we mistaken by not being able to personally verify the existence of, for instance, imagined things? How is that a mistake on our part? We do take a lot of things for granted and on faith.
If we say that the earth is flat, when in fact it is round, then we are mistaken, even if we don't know it (not knowing we're wrong is kind of the essence of being mistaken). The fact that the mistake cannot be shown at the moment does not make it any the less a mistake. You yourself talked, long ago, about "the truth" which exists independently of our ability to know it. Likewise, the earth is round, whether or not we honestly believe it to be flat. Once the error is exposed, we must all say, "whoops, guess we were wrong about that." No reasonable person would say, "well, it was flat when I thought it was flat so, therefore, I was not mistaken."

Did you mean to imply that the person who does believe that some things are "unreal" is exempt from being wrong?
No, that is not what I meant. I meant that, in order to hold to the belief that nothing is "unreal," one has to be able to live with self-doubt or else one can easily fall into the trap of saying that anything one can't comprehend must not be real. We see even advanced scientists doing that all the time. Most people, I think, would prefer not to remind themselves of all the things they don't know.

Okay, but even without quotes, except for the mention of spirit none of those things are supernatural. :)
Well, of course. Nothing is supernatural, including spirit. :p

These things were all thought to be supernatural before we figured out how to do them. To this day, you can find them listed in occultism books as mystical powers. But now we know how to do them, and we no longer think they are supernatural. And once we figure out the trick of observing spirit, we'll stop thinking that's supernatural, too.

I can play the "I have no evidence" game, too. I have no evidence that says that consciousness is anything other than a function of the body. I think this should be a board game, with metal pieces, though, not the cheap plastic ones.
I knew this conversation was worth having. Let's develop this game. We'll call our company WM Games, Inc. We'll tell people WM stands for "WassaMatta?" I'll design the logo. Every 100th customer gets a chance to win an oatmeal catapult. We'll be rich!!

Consciousness is our faculty of awareness. We are aware of things that go on in the mind as well as in the body. In fact, our bodily senses produce a steady stream of thoughts, most of which we tune out. The times when we are unconscious is one limitation of consciousness. Things that are tuned out (sub-conscious) is another. Being dead is a good one. Heck, even being forgetful.
Haha, how do you know the dead are not conscious? From people who've been revived? Maybe they were distracted, or maybe they forgot. ;)

The horizon doesn't limit your moments... *scratches head*
"The limitation of a moment" meant the limit of what I can perceive and know at any given moment.

Everything in nature is limited by its characteristics, by time and natural forces. If a thing had no limited shape, for instance, it would fill to infinity. If a thing did not die, it would live forever and life-forms would overrun the world. We humans are limited by our inhibitions, inabilities and discipline. Some of us are have limited mobility. There is evidence of these things, there really is.
I'm in no way denying any of this, but you are talking about material reality and the known in this paragraph. I'm talking about immaterial reality and the not yet known.

I say again that just because we know that we can't do ABC, it does not follow that we can assume from that that we can't do XYZ either. As a wise person once said, "You never know till you try."

Studies in consciousness: http://consc.net/biblio/6.html#6.1
Well that certainly seems to cover just about everything. Too bad my computer "is not configured for off-campus access." I'd like to get into those documents.

EDIT: BTW, Straughn nominated both of us for Sexiest Woman on NS (in the first thread about it). He likes brainy chicks. :D

Willamena

25-06-2006, 03:15

If we say that the earth is flat, when in fact it is round, then we are mistaken, even if we don't know it (not knowing we're wrong is kind of the essence of being mistaken). The fact that the mistake cannot be shown at the moment does not make it any the less a mistake. You yourself talked, long ago, about "the truth" which exists independently of our ability to know it. Likewise, the earth is round, whether or not we honestly believe it to be flat. Once the error is exposed, we must all say, "whoops, guess we were wrong about that." No reasonable person would say, "well, it was flat when I thought it was flat so, therefore, I was not mistaken."
Ah! Truth is equated with objective reality, so what is "real" (or "unreal") must be dependent upon objective reality. I get'cha. Yes, that the earth is flat is not objectively true. But I thought you were trying to make a point about the first context I used, not the second.

Earlier I pointed out two valid contexts for 'real', and two for 'true', that are used in common everyday situations, and the fact that we inherit them from civilizations with radically different world-views. Your "mistake" is only a mistake from one of those views, the objective one, the one generally accepted as "the truth" in the modern world. But... you were talking about the other context, the first context, not the second, or trying to.

From the subjective context, where we are empowered to know what is real from personal experience, it is only a mistake on our part because we place the greater value on objectivity. "We" meaning modern people.

This is the world-view that produced the first context I spoke of, the one where the individual is empowered to judge what is real and unreal: I look out from my eyes, and the world is what envelopes me. It is all around me, and I am at the centre of all that is real. In this way am I a part of the world that I participate in. As I look out at the world, from horizon to horizon, it stretches outward from me. The earth, from here, is flat.

Objectivity doesn't really enter into that.

This is the world-view that produces "the truth": As we look down on the earth, we see people engaged in their little lives in their own little worlds. They are individuals, all a part of a greater whole of 'humanity', and a larger whole of 'the universe'. The centre of the universe is ...somewhere out there, but they are just now beginning to see it with their radio telescopes. The earth they live on is round.

So, above you are effectively saying that the subjective perspective doesn't work objectively, and that's a big d'uh! ;) I agree!

No, that is not what I meant. I meant that, in order to hold to the belief that nothing is "unreal," one has to be able to live with self-doubt or else one can easily fall into the trap of saying that anything one can't comprehend must not be real. We see even advanced scientists doing that all the time. Most people, I think, would prefer not to remind themselves of all the things they don't know.
*baffled* I don't understand this at all. I'm sorry. I don't see why "unreal" equates to "not able to comprehend", and what does self-doubt have to do with it?

Well, of course. Nothing is supernatural, including spirit. :p

These things were all thought to be supernatural before we figured out how to do them. To this day, you can find them listed in occultism books as mystical powers. But now we know how to do them, and we no longer think they are supernatural. And once we figure out the trick of observing spirit, we'll stop thinking that's supernatural, too.
Well, technicially, metaphysically, nothing is "not a thing" and supernatural is "a thing", so they can't be equated. :p lol

Actually, they were only "thought to be supernatual before we figured out how to do them" by fools, people who did not understand what the supernatural is. Like people of the 19th Century occultism popularity movement.

Coming up with a natural explanation of how something works does not eliminate the supernatural explanation. Even if we obeserve something we choose to label "spirit", it isn't it. It never will be. It will just be something natural that we didn't observe before about ourselves.

I knew this conversation was worth having. Let's develop this game. We'll call our company WM Games, Inc. We'll tell people WM stands for "WassaMatta?" I'll design the logo. Every 100th customer gets a chance to win an oatmeal catapult. We'll be rich!!
I'm in.

Haha, how do you know the dead are not conscious? From people who've been revived? Maybe they were distracted, or maybe they forgot. ;)
Simple; because of the definition of consciousness. :p

Now, if you want to re-write that, you can, but then you have to explain why you do that, how it works under your definition, and how that definition is inherently better than the old definition.

"The limitation of a moment" meant the limit of what I can perceive and know at any given moment.
That is the coolest limit of all. ...But that's not "horizon". Horizon is simply the line where the sky meets the earth.

I'm in no way denying any of this, but you are talking about material reality and the known in this paragraph. I'm talking about immaterial reality and the not yet known.
Immateral things are limited in the same way, which is why our imagination is often compared to a landscape. The image of a cow takes the imagined shape of a cow, otherwise it would fill the 'space' of our imagination and not be recognizable as a cow. The image of "two" takes on the quantity of two things. These are its limitations.

I say again that just because we know that we can't do ABC, it does not follow that we can assume from that that we can't do XYZ either. As a wise person once said, "You never know till you try."
Even this has a limitation. It is limited by the structure of what it is you are trying to achieve (the goal).

EDIT: BTW, Straughn nominated both of us for Sexiest Woman on NS (in the first thread about it). He likes brainy chicks. :D
:eeks: Oh dear.

Muravyets

25-06-2006, 07:26

Ah! Truth is equated with objective reality, so what is "real" (or "unreal") must be dependent upon objective reality. I get'cha. Yes, that the earth is flat is not objectively true. But I thought you were trying to make a point about the first context I used, not the second.

Earlier I pointed out two valid contexts for 'real', and two for 'true', that are used in common everyday situations, and the fact that we inherit them from civilizations with radically different world-views. Your "mistake" is only a mistake from one of those views, the objective one, the one generally accepted as "the truth" in the modern world. But... you were talking about the other context, the first context, not the second, or trying to.

From the subjective context, where we are empowered to know what is real from personal experience, it is only a mistake on our part because we place the greater value on objectivity. "We" meaning modern people.

This is the world-view that produced the first context I spoke of, the one where the individual is empowered to judge what is real and unreal: I look out from my eyes, and the world is what envelopes me. It is all around me, and I am at the centre of all that is real. In this way am I a part of the world that I participate in. As I look out at the world, from horizon to horizon, it stretches outward from me. The earth, from here, is flat.

Objectivity doesn't really enter into that.

This is the world-view that produces "the truth": As we look down on the earth, we see people engaged in their little lives in their own little worlds. They are individuals, all a part of a greater whole of 'humanity', and a larger whole of 'the universe'. The centre of the universe is ...somewhere out there, but they are just now beginning to see it with their radio telescopes. The earth they live on is round.

So, above you are effectively saying that the subjective perspective doesn't work objectively, and that's a big d'uh! ;) I agree!
Yes, indeed, d'uh. But I have also been trying to say that the objective perspective does not work subjectively. You see, to my mind, it's not an either/or proposition. Reality is not either objective or subjective. It is both. There are things we know -- we have knowledge of them backed up by evidence/proof. These things can be treated objectively, but they are just pieces of reality or reflections of reality, and each such piece or image is limited by what any given human mind is capable of doing at any given time.

Then there are things we believe. Going back to your "world-view that produces 'the truth'" this is a subjective perspective in which we can see things very clearly, but we see them only from our own perspective. No one else can share that perspective and so we cannot show evidence/proof for anything we see subjectively, even though it may be "the truth." But the part of this that I focus on is that this perspective is a personal perspective. It is your or my subjective perspective. Within this totally subjective view of reality, who is to say where its limits are, other than you for you and me for me? Who can determine what you can or cannot do, other than you? And likewise for me?

The objective perspective is shared and not in my control. The subjective perspective is personal and entirely within my control. I believe that humans are able to acquire knowledge from the subjective perspective and translate that knowledge to the objective perspective. Just as was done with the technological advances I listed earlier. (And we can translate vice versa, too.)

You seem to be saying that the objective and subjective perspectives are forever separate and that is why "the truth," "the supernatural," "spirit," etc., can never be known the way objective facts can be known, as if the perspectives were exclusive realms rooted in the external universe that contains human beings.

I'm saying the two perspectives are both rooted in the human mind, and they overlap, and it is possible for the same information to be seen both ways. (OMG! I'm saying it's possible to look at life from both sides now, and I hate that song!)

Last thing: I have to point out that the subjective perspective of a flat earth is an illusion. If you change your perspective by climbing high enough, you can see the curvature of the earth. In other words, depending on how you control your subjective perspective, you can change the limits of your own perspective. And, just as the flat earth is an illusion, so might be the things you are seeing in this world-view that produces "the truth." This too may be nothing more than a piece or reflection of the truth, just like objective reality.

*baffled* I don't understand this at all. I'm sorry. I don't see why "unreal" equates to "not able to comprehend", and what does self-doubt have to do with it?
The problem is that you are still trying to make my point of view fit your model of reality, which includes both "real" and "unreal." But my point of view insists that there is no such thing as "unreal." That concept doesn't even occur in my model of reality. So if one is going to live in a universe where everything is real, but not everything is known and it is possible to be wrong even about what one thinks one knows, then one has to be comfortable with the idea of possibly being proved wrong.

So, for instance, the flat earth idea has been proven wrong. The only people would really be put out by that would be the ones who were not willing to accept that they had been wrong, that their understanding of the world was mistaken. The ones who approached even their own basic beliefs and knowledge with skepticism about themselves (i.e. self-doubt) and open-mindedness would simply adjust their thinking to match the newly discovered information.

This question of the nature of reality is one of the points where I guess we just plain think differently.

Well, technicially, metaphysically, nothing is "not a thing" and supernatural is "a thing", so they can't be equated. :p lol
A mere oatmeal catapult will not be enough to stop me when I come for you, W.

Actually, they were only "thought to be supernatual before we figured out how to do them" by fools, people who did not understand what the supernatural is. Like people of the 19th Century occultism popularity movement.
What do you mean? That only the Victorians thought they were supernatural? That other people thought they were real but couldn't demonstrate them and couldn't prove them, but somehow that doesn't mean they thought of them as supernatural? Or are you saying pre-Victorians had supernatural powers?

As it happens, these so-called powers are quite ancient in human imagination and, some people claim, experience. What the exact nature of any such experiences might be is an open question, but they appear generally in mystical disciplines all over the world and as long ago as ancient Egypt at least. The concepts behind them figure heavily in esoteric studies and, increasingly, in neuroscience and psychology. You should take another look a that big giant bibliography you posted. There are titles there that I recognized by subject as dealing with just these kinds of issues.

To me, the fact that they were imagined in great detail for so long, in so many cultures, and were attempted (if unsuccessfully) by so many people, would be an indicator that they were always real possibilities, always natural phenomena, always within the realm of human capability. It's just that we didn't figure out the trick of them until recently.

Coming up with a natural explanation of how something works does not eliminate the supernatural explanation. Even if we obeserve something we choose to label "spirit", it isn't it. It never will be. It will just be something natural that we didn't observe before about ourselves.
Well, it seems rather like rearranging the pieces on the board after the game has begun to say that, no matter what we learn about spirit, it will always elude us by not being "spirit." Is this going to be a trick in our no-evidence game? We'll have to write the rules very, very clearly -- or very vaguely.

I'll just repeat my statement that you have no more evidence that spirit is unknowable than I have that it is knowable.

I'm in.
Excellent.

(Warning: There's a good chance that, the more I think about it, the more doable this scheme will seem to me.)

Simple; because of the definition of consciousness. :p

Now, if you want to re-write that, you can, but then you have to explain why you do that, how it works under your definition, and how that definition is inherently better than the old definition.
Your definition is merely neurological. *airy hand wave* I can try to write a cogent explanation of consciousness for the context in which I'm using it, but it will take time and it's 2AM already here. I'll do it within a few days and post it later.

That is the coolest limit of all. ...But that's not "horizon". Horizon is simply the line where the sky meets the earth.
Oh, cute -- reduce a perfectly good analogy to nothing but a bit of plonking pragmatic empiricism, why don't you? You know perfectly well I wasn't talking about a literal horizon or a literal flat earth or anything like that. *sulks a bit*

Immateral things are limited in the same way, which is why our imagination is often compared to a landscape. The image of a cow takes the imagined shape of a cow, otherwise it would fill the 'space' of our imagination and not be recognizable as a cow. The image of "two" takes on the quantity of two things. These are its limitations.
I will stipulate that any given idea will contain its own defining limitations. But now, rather than tell me how limited the ideas of "cow" and "two" are, tell me the limits of the human mind and the limits of possible phenomena that can occur in the universe. I will do better at explaining my definition of consciousness than you will of measuring the limits of immaterial reality, I'll bet.

Even this has a limitation. It is limited by the structure of what it is you are trying to achieve (the goal).
What if the goal is to gain knowledge of everything you say is unknowable?

:eeks: Oh dear.
Only you were still in the running last time I checked the nomination thread.

The Dangerous Maybe

25-06-2006, 13:40

Or they are liars.

They will realize how meaningless the concept of truth actually is.

If something isn't the truth, it isn't necessarily a lie.

Bruarong

25-06-2006, 17:33

That's a very good point. So we differentiate between "knowing", i.e. the conscious process that allows us to recall information from memory or look it up in a book, and the information processes in the mind that are subconscious (below our threshold of awareness). Believing, as such, is a subconscious processing of information; we do not consciously choose to believe in something. The generation of mythic symbols, like the image of God, is another such subconscious processing.

Subconscious processing? Maybe it is for some, but can the belief in God be *all* subconscious processing? That is a rather large claim, and it doesn't really answer my question, unless you are saying that subconscious processing is equivalent to knowledge (of some sort) of the supernatural. In that case, if this is the knowledge of the supernatural that you are referring to, I do find that somewhat confusing. I, for one, can't see how subconscious processing could ever be mistaken for positive knowledge of the supernatural, and that on that basis, one could determine the supernatural to be unknowable, as you are suggesting.

I don't have all the answers, so I hope that suffices.

I doubt any mortal does.

I know that the question wasn't directed at me, but I would like to respond. The basis of the statement that we are incapable of examining the supernatural is because it is immaterial and we are material, our bodies are material, our processers of perception are material, our machines are material.

I don't really buy that. Everyone seems to be able to recognise the concept of love, for example, even though we are restricted to detection of the effects of love. Love is immaterial, as far as we know, but that doesn't stop us from knowing it, at least to some degree. Or consider life itself. As far as we know, life is immaterial. We can detect the effects of life (heart beat, temperature, brain activity, etc.) but we cannot even say what life is. And yet we can know that it exists, because we have learned how to detect it. Obviously, there is a great difference between knowing life and knowing the supernatural, and so my analogy is limited. And yet, the fact that humans have material machines (I object to the suggestion that we ARE machines) and that we are rather limited in many ways does not therefore mean that we cannot know (something at least) about the immaterial.

Bruarong

25-06-2006, 18:10

It still comes down to our ability to know about the supernatural. If we can know of it in some way, whether it be us creating it by believing it, revelation or some other method.

Several religions have it that the supernatural has revealed itself to humans. Thus knowing the supernatural could also be through revelation, not necessarily through inventing it or investigating it.

Unless I missed something, we'd have to understand the exact process, becore we can make any claims about the level of knowledge we can have of the supernatural. If we can know about it, we can know about it.. Right?
So why shouldn't we able to know all about it?

Because it is possible to know something about e.g. life, without knowing all about it. Life itself doesn't seem to be a mathematical formula where either we can know it or we don't. I suggest that biologists (biology means the study of life) know quite a lot about life, but have yet to discover what life really is. Yes, they have the descriptions of life, what it does and what it looks like. But not what it is. Partial knowledge is what we have, and what we have to work with. Thus, it is possible to know something of the supernatural, perhaps, without needing to know *all* of it.

You answered that question yourself. I'm incapable at present.

In your initial post, you did not mention that you are presently unable to investigate or know the supernatural. The way you presented your post suggested to me that you think that you cannot know the supernatural, and that means not ever, I would have thought. It is one thing to say that you cannot know it now, and yet another to say that it cannot be known.

Regardless, this moves the debate into the absurd. For example, the invisible friend you had as a child, might actually be imagining you, me, everything we've ever known & a good deal more. How can we be sure that isn't the case? Can you somehow prove you didn't have an invisible friend as a child, for example?

I don't find our discussion absurd at all. Of course, I cannot prove to you that our perception of reality is nothing more than the result of someone's imagination. But then again, I'm not really interested in proving this, and besides, this is not really pertinant to our conversation.

It's the trouble with absurd ideas (and the great thing about them as well). As soon as we shift the burden of proof, anything's possible & always will be possible - because we can always change the criteria we set up.

Plenty of things that are commonly thought of as true today began as absurdities. Just because something might seem a little strange, that doesn't mean it's wrong, wouldn't you say?

If we could definitively prove deity X didn't create the universe, for example, people would simply claim the deity X caused whatever cause caused the universe (Loving that sentence).

I think you are probably right about that one.

It's what the supernatural, or the imagination, is all about; a method of disregarding reality. It is to me, at least.

Imagination is a way through which we percieve reality (at least it can be). For example, consider the concept of abiogenesis. We need our imagination to percieve what conditions would have been like during the molecular evolution of molecules. The same might be said of any reconstruction process. Every good scientist has a healthy imagination. The same goes for the theologians, I supppose. They have the Bible, but they still need their imaginations to know what the God of the Bible is like.

Just take our debate about knowing the unknowable here. Even if we somehow ended up agreeing that the unknowable is unknowable, I could simply imagine a nice little entity that could know about the unknowable, and somehow pass on the info to me. Whose to say I'd be wrong?

The unknowable is unknowable because we have defined it that way--not able to be known. And if there was someone in the position to pass on knowledge of the supernatural on to us, we would simply have the situation which is called revelation. Examples of relevation are the Bible and the Koran. Both are claimed to be relevations of the divine.

QUOTE=Similization]
Hmm.. I think I smell my brain melting. That bubbling sound in my eyeballs leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Always happens whenever I start pretending other peoples' phantasmagoria isn't fiction.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, I have found no indication that you have been pretending that phantasmagoria is not fiction. I suspect that you have been simply considering a case scenario. Your imagination ought to be capable of such, and if it causes you some discomfort, maybe you ought to think about why. For example, does consideration of the possibility of time travel also make your eyeballs bubble? I hope not.

Willamena

25-06-2006, 18:24

Yes, indeed, d'uh. But I have also been trying to say that the objective perspective does not work subjectively. You see, to my mind, it's not an either/or proposition. Reality is not either objective or subjective. It is both. There are things we know -- we have knowledge of them backed up by evidence/proof. These things can be treated objectively, but they are just pieces of reality or reflections of reality, and each such piece or image is limited by what any given human mind is capable of doing at any given time.
It is both, correct, at any given moment. And the objective perspective does not work subjectively. I have no argument with that.

Then there are things we believe. Going back to your "world-view that produces 'the truth'" this is a subjective perspective in which we can see things very clearly, but we see them only from our own perspective. No one else can share that perspective and so we cannot show evidence/proof for anything we see subjectively, even though it may be "the truth." But the part of this that I focus on is that this perspective is a personal perspective. It is your or my subjective perspective. Within this totally subjective view of reality, who is to say where its limits are, other than you for you and me for me? Who can determine what you can or cannot do, other than you? And likewise for me?
Well, now it sounds like you are taking about rights, not capabilities. :)

Physical reality determines what we can and cannot do. We determine what we will and will not do.

The objective perspective is shared and not in my control. The subjective perspective is personal and entirely within my control. I believe that humans are able to acquire knowledge from the subjective perspective and translate that knowledge to the objective perspective. Just as was done with the technological advances I listed earlier. (And we can translate vice versa, too.)

You seem to be saying that the objective and subjective perspectives are forever separate and that is why "the truth," "the supernatural," "spirit," etc., can never be known the way objective facts can be known, as if the perspectives were exclusive realms rooted in the external universe that contains human beings.
This is what I meant by being influenced by your thoughts: you give a twist to what I said, trying to understand it, and you do it often enough that I begin to believe that I said what you say I said. I probably do it, too, but others are not so weak-minded as I. I think I've worked it out, though, and here is my response...

The two perspectives are forever separate from one another in that they are different things, not the same thing. They are mutually exclusive perspectives, and some things are possible from one that are impossible from the other. This is true of both perspectives.

It is not the separation of perspectives that, in my opinion, creates the idea of a supernatural, but one perspective alone --the subjective one. I am saying that our subjective perspective is a result of consciousness, and from that perspective we will never know a certain portion of what is inside us. Following logically from that, we cannot know if something immaterial is there or not, and since everything in the universe has a subjective perspective, everything in the universe has this same unknownable inside it.

But we can deduce that something is there. We have clues --behavioral, emotional, relationship-of-stuff clues. Now, these things have a natural explanation, this is true; however, a natural explanation does not eliminate the possiblity of a supernatural explanation. (I've covered this all, but I'm happy to go over it again if you want.)

From an objective perspective, we are even more limited because there is no subject in that picture at all. The supernatural we speak of above effectively does not exist.

"The truth" is another matter.

I'm saying the two perspectives are both rooted in the human mind, and they overlap, and it is possible for the same information to be seen both ways. (OMG! I'm saying it's possible to look at life from both sides now, and I hate that song!)
Isn't something "rooted in the mind" automatically also "rooted in the universe"? After all, the mind is part of the universe.

It is possible to look at life from both sides. :)

Last thing: I have to point out that the subjective perspective of a flat earth is an illusion. If you change your perspective by climbing high enough, you can see the curvature of the earth. In other words, depending on how you control your subjective perspective, you can change the limits of your own perspective. And, just as the flat earth is an illusion, so might be the things you are seeing in this world-view that produces "the truth." This too may be nothing more than a piece or reflection of the truth, just like objective reality.
What we see and know only ever approaches objective reality. That, what we 'see' and know, is our understanding --literally "standing under" the truth. The truth of objective reality is not reachable because of the limitations of our perception, yet we use the best knowledge we have of it at any given moment in history as "the truth".

I made a distinction earlier that the subjective perspective does not produce(?*) "the truth", just truth. Truth is truth --it doesn't change because of the perspective. What does change is how we view the truth. I had said that "the truth" is an accurate understanding of reality --that is truth from the objective perspective.

For our imaginary friend, here, who has climbed into orbit, the old 'fact' of the flat world is now known to be an illusion of perspective. New information has been introduced, "the truth" was revealed, and his world-view has changed.

Still, he goes back to his camp on the flat plains and looks around him, and is content to live in, and be a part of, a flat-earth world. He is content to know that even though the whole earth is round from orbit, the earth from horizon to horizon is flat. He is content, because it is still true. His observation still matches up with his understanding, and that was the second definition I gave.

We can change the limits of our vision, I've no argument with that. That is not a limit on subjective perspective, though --the perspective is not all the things between us an the horizon, the perspective is us looking at the horizon. Even if our range of vision is reduced to millimeters infront of our face, we still have perspective; the perspective has not changed. The only limit on the subjective perspective is the one I mentioned earlier, that inner unknowable.

The problem is that you are still trying to make my point of view fit your model of reality, which includes both "real" and "unreal." But my point of view insists that there is no such thing as "unreal." That concept doesn't even occur in my model of reality. So if one is going to live in a universe where everything is real, but not everything is known and it is possible to be wrong even about what one thinks one knows, then one has to be comfortable with the idea of possibly being proved wrong.

So, for instance, the flat earth idea has been proven wrong. The only people would really be put out by that would be the ones who were not willing to accept that they had been wrong, that their understanding of the world was mistaken. The ones who approached even their own basic beliefs and knowledge with skepticism about themselves (i.e. self-doubt) and open-mindedness would simply adjust their thinking to match the newly discovered information.
Okay, but I did point out a context in which unreal things exist, and you seemed to agree.

Both of us live in a world where "not everything is known and it is possible to be wrong even about what one thinks one knows." We both live in a world where we are "comfortable with the idea of possibly being proved wrong." The only significant difference between us, then, is that I accept the definition given for "unreal" and you do not.

So let's ignore the parts where we agree and look at the significant bit. The flat-earth proposal has been demonstrated to be "wrong"* when viewed from orbit. Keeping in subjective context, if I return to the surface of the planet, the flat-earth proposal is right again --I am back in a comfortable truth. That the facts have changed from 'what I see is a flat earth' to 'what I see is an optical illusion' does not make the truth I see any less true, it just adds new information.

Take those pictures where you see a face of an old woman and the face of a young one. You really DO see those two faces on the page --there is nothing false about that. That IS something you can believe in. What is unreal about the illusion is simply the images --"the image of an old woman" and "the image of a young woman", where in fact what we are looking at is lines drawn on a page. In this case, comprehending the non-literal is what makes for the unreal.

There is nothing really "wrong" about that, hence my confusion. It is only wrong when we say, "No! It's actually lines on a page, you silly human!"

I can't speak for the Flat Earth Society who get their beliefs from the Bible, though.

What do you mean? That only the Victorians thought they were supernatural? That other people thought they were real but couldn't demonstrate them and couldn't prove them, but somehow that doesn't mean they thought of them as supernatural? Or are you saying pre-Victorians had supernatural powers?

As it happens, these so-called powers are quite ancient in human imagination and, some people claim, experience. What the exact nature of any such experiences might be is an open question, but they appear generally in mystical disciplines all over the world and as long ago as ancient Egypt at least. The concepts behind them figure heavily in esoteric studies and, increasingly, in neuroscience and psychology. You should take another look a that big giant bibliography you posted. There are titles there that I recognized by subject as dealing with just these kinds of issues.

To me, the fact that they were imagined in great detail for so long, in so many cultures, and were attempted (if unsuccessfully) by so many people, would be an indicator that they were always real possibilities, always natural phenomena, always within the realm of human capability. It's just that we didn't figure out the trick of them until recently.
I am saying that there is supernatural, and there is a misunderstanding of the supernatural, and that more often than not the latter is jumped on (and summarily humped) by people in all walks of life. I used the Victorian movement only as an example; another would be the New Age movement of the 1970's.

I am saying that I don't believe in "supernatural powers". Everything that happens in the natural world is explainable in natural terms, including these "powers". That doesn't rule out the supernatural; it is just to say that I don't believe that the supernatural does impact the natural world. In my view, it doesn't have to. It's totally unnecessary.

I am saying that a lot of things attributed to and lumped under the term "supernatural" as either 'of unknown origin' or 'magical/mystical' are not supernatural at all. They are natural, and probably will be explained someday. The supernatural has to do with spiritual matters, not physical. I am saying that I don't believe in the paranormal.

Well, it seems rather like rearranging the pieces on the board after the game has begun to say that, no matter what we learn about spirit, it will always elude us by not being "spirit." Is this going to be a trick in our no-evidence game? We'll have to write the rules very, very clearly -- or very vaguely.

I'll just repeat my statement that you have no more evidence that spirit is unknowable than I have that it is knowable.
'Spirit' isn't supposed to be known; that's the whole point of it. Spiritual matters are about us, our relationships, our interactions with each other --not about the reality of some incorporeal thing. It doesn't matter if we never find the spirit objectively, if we've already "found" it subjectively in us.

Your definition is merely neurological. *airy hand wave* I can try to write a cogent explanation of consciousness for the context in which I'm using it, but it will take time and it's 2AM already here. I'll do it within a few days and post it later.
Consciousness is merely neurological. The non-literal part is "us".

Oh, cute -- reduce a perfectly good analogy to nothing but a bit of plonking pragmatic empiricism, why don't you? You know perfectly well I wasn't talking about a literal horizon or a literal flat earth or anything like that. *sulks a bit*
Can I borrow that? "Plonking pragmatic empiricism," that's good. :)

So your analogy was made to a horizon that is not a horizon... deja vu! I encountered this once before.

I will stipulate that any given idea will contain its own defining limitations. But now, rather than tell me how limited the ideas of "cow" and "two" are, tell me the limits of the human mind and the limits of possible phenomena that can occur in the universe. I will do better at explaining my definition of consciousness than you will of measuring the limits of immaterial reality, I'll bet.
The human imagination is unbounded; I understand and agree with that metaphor. Possibility itself is unbounded. You do realise these metaphors are of something that is unreal? ;) lol

What if the goal is to gain knowledge of everything you say is unknowable?
The unknowable is not knowable --I defy you to know the unknowable. ;)

*Wrong idea, but just continuing on with the same terminology you used.

Willamena

25-06-2006, 20:20

Because it is possible to know something about e.g. life, without knowing all about it. Life itself doesn't seem to be a mathematical formula where either we can know it or we don't. I suggest that biologists (biology means the study of life) know quite a lot about life, but have yet to discover what life really is. Yes, they have the descriptions of life, what it does and what it looks like. But not what it is. Partial knowledge is what we have, and what we have to work with. Thus, it is possible to know something of the supernatural, perhaps, without needing to know *all* of it.
But that's knowledge about life-forms, not life. We have partial knowledge of life-forms. Biologists study life-forms, not life. We know nothing about life, if it is a thing, because it is immaterial --all we have is the idea of it, the concept.

The Dangerous Maybe

25-06-2006, 20:25

But that's knowledge about life-forms, not life. We have partial knowledge of life-forms. Biologists study life-forms, not life. We know nothing about life, if it is a thing, because it is immaterial --all we have is the idea of it, the concept.

That is true with all of science. We don't know what things are, we know what they do.

Muravyets

26-06-2006, 07:36

Well, now it sounds like you are taking about rights, not capabilities. :)

Physical reality determines what we can and cannot do. We determine what we will and will not do.
No, I'm talking about capabilities. We do not know what the limits of physical reality are or even that it has limits. We determine -- meaning: we identify, test, and prove -- what we can and cannot do by trying. For a very long time, it was thought that it was physically impossible for a human being to run a mile in less than 4 minutes. That barrier was broken by a runner named Bannister in 1954.

Here's an article about it: http://www.sptimes.com/News/121799/Sports/Bannister_stuns_world.shtml

Within weeks of that accomplishment, Bannister's record was broken and human speed times have been dropping ever since. Clearly, people were wrong about their understanding of physical reality. They thought they had identified a limit. That limit was passed by simple trying which proved that, in fact, there was no such limit.

This is what I meant by being influenced by your thoughts: you give a twist to what I said, trying to understand it, and you do it often enough that I begin to believe that I said what you say I said. I probably do it, too, but others are not so weak-minded as I. I think I've worked it out, though, and here is my response...
I'm sorry. I learned in school to repeat back to a person what I think they said so they can (a) see that I'm listening to them and (b) let me know if I'm not understanding them right. Also, I try to use the examples and context provided by the other person to explore that person’s points, so I take their point and add to it. I apologize if this causes a problem.

The two perspectives are forever separate from one another in that they are different things, not the same thing. They are mutually exclusive perspectives, and some things are possible from one that are impossible from the other. This is true of both perspectives.
I agree that they are mutually exclusive in how they function, but I persist in saying that the same information can be viewed from both perspectives, and something that is seen from the subjective perspective can be shifted into the objective perspective. Thus, the subjective belief in the power to look inside a living human body to diagnose illness without killing the patient has been shifted into the objective facts of X-ray, PET scans, CAT scans, and MRI scans. It took many thousands of years for the shift to happen, but it has happened. Obviously, this thing that was possible when viewed from the subjective perspective was not impossible when viewed from the objective perspective. It was just difficult.

It is not the separation of perspectives that, in my opinion, creates the idea of a supernatural, but one perspective alone --the subjective one. I am saying that our subjective perspective is a result of consciousness, and from that perspective we will never know a certain portion of what is inside us. Following logically from that, we cannot know if something immaterial is there or not, and since everything in the universe has a subjective perspective, everything in the universe has this same unknownable inside it.

But we can deduce that something is there. We have clues --behavioral, emotional, relationship-of-stuff clues. Now, these things have a natural explanation, this is true; however, a natural explanation does not eliminate the possiblity of a supernatural explanation. (I've covered this all, but I'm happy to go over it again if you want.)
I’ve already explained that I disagree with your basic premise that we can never know that “certain portion of what is inside us.” I think we can know it. I’ve mentioned that mystics and some philosophers also say that we can know it. I need time to compile sources, as my sources are not online. I’ll send the references to you as soon as I can, and you can make your own judgment as to their worth. It may take a while as I have some art shows coming up, so I will probably TG them to you in the near future.

The bottom line is I do not accept your premise. This is what I meant about reaching the point where the difference in our way of thinking is just going to take us in different directions.

From an objective perspective, we are even more limited because there is no subject in that picture at all. The supernatural we speak of above effectively does not exist.

"The truth" is another matter.
That’s exactly why I’ve been saying that the supernatural does not exist. Since I believe that everything we view from the subjective perspective we can also view from the objective perspective, then, obviously, what is viewed subjectively must be of the same nature as what is viewed ojectively.

The key to understanding my point of view is the word “perspective.” Perspective is determined by the viewer, not by the thing being viewed. The same human mind can view from both subjective and objective perspectives and can switch between them at will. We all do it, every day.

Whether I look at a thing subjectively or objectively, I am still looking at that thing. “Subject” and “object” are mutally exclusive functions, but the same idea can act as both, with just a slight adjustment of ... perspective.

Isn't something "rooted in the mind" automatically also "rooted in the universe"? After all, the mind is part of the universe.

It is possible to look at life from both sides. :)
I meant that the human mind is the controlling power.

What we see and know only ever approaches objective reality. That, what we 'see' and know, is our understanding --literally "standing under" the truth. The truth of objective reality is not reachable because of the limitations of our perception, yet we use the best knowledge we have of it at any given moment in history as "the truth".
Again, you insist that a limit exists, while I insist that there is no limit. I do not think we are going to reach agreement on these particular points.

I made a distinction earlier that the subjective perspective does not produce(?*) "the truth", just truth. Truth is truth --it doesn't change because of the perspective. What does change is how we view the truth. I had said that "the truth" is an accurate understanding of reality --that is truth from the objective perspective.

For our imaginary friend, here, who has climbed into orbit, the old 'fact' of the flat world is now known to be an illusion of perspective. New information has been introduced, "the truth" was revealed, and his world-view has changed.
Actually, if you just go to the top of a very high building or even just a moderate mountain, you can see the curvature. FYI.

Still, he goes back to his camp on the flat plains and looks around him, and is content to live in, and be a part of, a flat-earth world. He is content to know that even though the whole earth is round from orbit, the earth from horizon to horizon is flat. He is content, because it is still true. His observation still matches up with his understanding, and that was the second definition I gave.
I dispute this. Do you forget what you have experienced just because you're not experiencing it at the moment? I suggest that his understading of his subjective perspective will be altered by his objective experiences. The perspectives do not meld together, but they do influence and interact with each other.

We can change the limits of our vision, I've no argument with that. That is not a limit on subjective perspective, though --the perspective is not all the things between us an the horizon, the perspective is us looking at the horizon. Even if our range of vision is reduced to millimeters infront of our face, we still have perspective; the perspective has not changed. The only limit on the subjective perspective is the one I mentioned earlier, that inner unknowable.
There's that pesky point of disagreement again.

Okay, but I did point out a context in which unreal things exist, and you seemed to agree.

Both of us live in a world where "not everything is known and it is possible to be wrong even about what one thinks one knows." We both live in a world where we are "comfortable with the idea of possibly being proved wrong." The only significant difference between us, then, is that I accept the definition given for "unreal" and you do not.
Yes, agreed.

So let's ignore the parts where we agree and look at the significant bit. The flat-earth proposal has been demonstrated to be "wrong"* when viewed from orbit. Keeping in subjective context, if I return to the surface of the planet, the flat-earth proposal is right again --I am back in a comfortable truth. That the facts have changed from 'what I see is a flat earth' to 'what I see is an optical illusion' does not make the truth I see any less true, it just adds new information.

Take those pictures where you see a face of an old woman and the face of a young one. You really DO see those two faces on the page --there is nothing false about that. That IS something you can believe in. What is unreal about the illusion is simply the images --"the image of an old woman" and "the image of a young woman", where in fact what we are looking at is lines drawn on a page. In this case, comprehending the non-literal is what makes for the unreal.
In one very limited sense, I can agree, but in another sense, I cannot agree.

In the very limited sense of neurological function, yes, the two faces perceived on the page are "real" even though we know it is just lines on a page. Because the mere fact of seeing and processing the image through the brain is real and the statement "I see two faces" is both real as an objective fact (the existence of the statement, not its content) and true as a description of a subjective experience.

But in the sense of what we think about what we see, I cannot agree. I maintain that the knowledge that it is just lines on a page can affect the subjective perception with doubt and thus undermine it.

But then, this statement might be colored by the fact that, in my artwork, manipulating subjective perceptions is my bread and butter. I do actually occasionally experience difficulty seeing past the objective artificiality of images and representations, because I am too aware of how they were made. It may also be colored by the fact that I have a hard time seeing those optical illusions, like the two faces test. Very rarely do I spot the illusory image right away. Usually, I have to stare at it from various angles for several minutes before I get it, and sometimes I never see it at all. In fact, even with the same picture, I'll see it sometimes and not others.

There is nothing really "wrong" about that, hence my confusion. It is only wrong when we say, "No! It's actually lines on a page, you silly human!"

I can't speak for the Flat Earth Society who get their beliefs from the Bible, though.
Nobody can speak for them. I sometimes think they're just being sarcastic.
:D

I am saying that there is supernatural, and there is a misunderstanding of the supernatural, and that more often than not the latter is jumped on (and summarily humped) by people in all walks of life. I used the Victorian movement only as an example; another would be the New Age movement of the 1970's.

I am saying that I don't believe in "supernatural powers". Everything that happens in the natural world is explainable in natural terms, including these "powers". That doesn't rule out the supernatural; it is just to say that I don't believe that the supernatural does impact the natural world. In my view, it doesn't have to. It's totally unnecessary.

I am saying that a lot of things attributed to and lumped under the term "supernatural" as either 'of unknown origin' or 'magical/mystical' are not supernatural at all. They are natural, and probably will be explained someday. The supernatural has to do with spiritual matters, not physical. I am saying that I don't believe in the paranormal.
And once again, I'm saying that I do not separate the "spiritual" from the "natural."

'Spirit' isn't supposed to be known; that's the whole point of it. Spiritual matters are about us, our relationships, our interactions with each other --not about the reality of some incorporeal thing. It doesn't matter if we never find the spirit objectively, if we've already "found" it subjectively in us.
I disagree. I don't see how we can separate "spirit" from reality. It is a part of us. Hell, according to my personal beliefs, it is us. We don't go about constantly aware of it because we don't have to, just like we don't have to be aware of our breathing all the time. But that does not mean we can't be aware of our breathing, or can't learn how it works and what it does, or even how to control it. I don't mean control in the sense of those silly "powers." I mean control in the sense of being able to expand our consciousness through it and, thus, expand our capabilities as beings in the universe -- our ability to learn, to empathize, to understand, to experience, and so forth.

Consciousness is merely neurological. The non-literal part is "us".
You'll have to keep waiting for my response -- art shows, you know. It won't be an attempt to refute, just an different point of view.

Can I borrow that? "Plonking pragmatic empiricism," that's good. :)
By all means. Have fun with it. :)

So your analogy was made to a horizon that is not a horizon... deja vu! I encountered this once before.

The human imagination is unbounded; I understand and agree with that metaphor. Possibility itself is unbounded. You do realise these metaphors are of something that is unreal? ;) lol
It's as real as the perception of two faces on a page.

The unknowable is not knowable --I defy you to know the unknowable. ;)
I defy you to tell me what is unknowable. Name a thing that cannot be known. *moves pawn; sits back smugly*

*Wrong idea, but just continuing on with the same terminology you used.
Too bad. You said it. I'm gonna use it. :p

Bruarong

26-06-2006, 09:12

But that's knowledge about life-forms, not life. We have partial knowledge of life-forms. Biologists study life-forms, not life. We know nothing about life, if it is a thing, because it is immaterial --all we have is the idea of it, the concept.

We can know something about life by studying life-forms. For example, so far, we have only ever detected life that comes from previous life. Thus we can say that life comes from life, i.e. it seems to need a life source, as far as we have found.
In this way, the study of life forms tells us something about life, and thus we can know something about life. And even if we only have a concept of life, at least we can say that we do know something positive about it. We can use our imaginations to picture in our minds what life might look like (e.g. a golden strand that gets cut eventually by one of three old grannies with scissors). But ultimately, I think it nonsense to claim that we cannot know anything (even partially) that is immaterial. Our own human consciousness is immaterial, and yet we are still learning lots about it.

Zolworld

26-06-2006, 10:23

Doesn't address the issue. You answered why you do things. Has nothing to do with the "why are we here" question that has plagued philosophy pretty much for all time.

Why are we here? Just a freak chance, thats why. life happened to spring out of somewhere, and we eventualy evolved. we have no more purpose than a tree or an amoeba, but unlike them we have the capacity to give our lives purpose.

Willamena

26-06-2006, 11:16

We can know something about life by studying life-forms. For example, so far, we have only ever detected life that comes from previous life. Thus we can say that life comes from life, i.e. it seems to need a life source, as far as we have found.
That's an observation. If we treat it as a conclusion, while knowing nothing about life itself, then it is an assumption.

Just like knowing anything about the supernatural by studying ourselves is an assumption.

In this way, the study of life forms tells us something about life, and thus we can know something about life. And even if we only have a concept of life, at least we can say that we do know something positive about it. We can use our imaginations to picture in our minds what life might look like (e.g. a golden strand that gets cut eventually by one of three old grannies with scissors).
That's not a valid argument, and I'm sure glad I never made it about the supernatural. :)

But ultimately, I think it nonsense to claim that we cannot know anything (even partially) that is immaterial. Our own human consciousness is immaterial, and yet we are still learning lots about it.
I agree.

You just shot your argument in the foot. In the same way we cannot know anything about it, we cannot say we know anything about it. Else, it's just us saying what we think, not what is.

Willamena

26-06-2006, 12:32

No, I'm talking about capabilities. We do not know what the limits of physical reality are or even that it has limits. We determine -- meaning: we identify, test, and prove -- what we can and cannot do by trying. For a very long time, it was thought that it was physically impossible for a human being to run a mile in less than 4 minutes. That barrier was broken by a runner named Bannister in 1954.

Within weeks of that accomplishment, Bannister's record was broken and human speed times have been dropping ever since. Clearly, people were wrong about their understanding of physical reality. They thought they had identified a limit. That limit was passed by simple trying which proved that, in fact, there was no such limit.
Gagh! "Physical" is a limit: it limits us to dealing with matter/energy and the relationships between them and filtering out all the rest of what might be reality; so we do know 'physical reality' has some limits.

The fellow who broke the speed limit just extended it --speed is a limit. The limit is still there. It hasn't gone anywhere, just changed in nominal value.

I suspect you are talking about the vision, not the capabilities of human beings. That has nothing to do with physical reality. I suspect you talk about something other than what you mean.

The physical world is ALL limits. It's what we compare ourselves to to know that we have the unbounded imagination.

I'm sorry. I learned in school to repeat back to a person what I think they said so they can (a) see that I'm listening to them and (b) let me know if I'm not understanding them right. Also, I try to use the examples and context provided by the other person to explore that person’s points, so I take their point and add to it. I apologize if this causes a problem.
My weakness isn't your fault. :)

I agree that they are mutually exclusive in how they function, but I persist in saying that the same information can be viewed from both perspectives, and something that is seen from the subjective perspective can be shifted into the objective perspective. Thus, the subjective belief in the power to look inside a living human body to diagnose illness without killing the patient has been shifted into the objective facts of X-ray, PET scans, CAT scans, and MRI scans. It took many thousands of years for the shift to happen, but it has happened. Obviously, this thing that was possible when viewed from the subjective perspective was not impossible when viewed from the objective perspective. It was just difficult.
Your example is looking at something entirely material.

I’ve already explained that I disagree with your basic premise that we can never know that “certain portion of what is inside us.” I think we can know it. I’ve mentioned that mystics and some philosophers also say that we can know it. I need time to compile sources, as my sources are not online. I’ll send the references to you as soon as I can, and you can make your own judgment as to their worth. It may take a while as I have some art shows coming up, so I will probably TG them to you in the near future.

The bottom line is I do not accept your premise. This is what I meant about reaching the point where the difference in our way of thinking is just going to take us in different directions.
I understand your position; you don't have to keep repeating that. :) I was just correcting what you'd "fed back" about mine that was incorrect.

That’s exactly why I’ve been saying that the supernatural does not exist. Since I believe that everything we view from the subjective perspective we can also view from the objective perspective, then, obviously, what is viewed subjectively must be of the same nature as what is viewed ojectively.

The key to understanding my point of view is the word “perspective.” Perspective is determined by the viewer, not by the thing being viewed. The same human mind can view from both subjective and objective perspectives and can switch between them at will. We all do it, every day.

Whether I look at a thing subjectively or objectively, I am still looking at that thing. “Subject” and “object” are mutally exclusive functions, but the same idea can act as both, with just a slight adjustment of ... perspective.
Perspective is determined by the viewer, yes. My position on perspective is not different from yours. But if you think of a camera, there is what the camera sees ...and then there is the cameraman. The cameraman is subjective to the camera. It cannot see him, unless of course he becomes 'no longer the camera man' and someone else holds it and points it at him. There is at least one thing that one persepective cannot do that the other can.

Now, make the cameraman entirely transparent in every measurable sense and you see that there is something that the subjective perspective can experience that the objective one can never.

I meant that the human mind is the controlling power.

Again, you insist that a limit exists, while I insist that there is no limit. I do not think we are going to reach agreement on these particular points.
Irrationally denying obvious limits isn't helping your case. ;)

Actually, if you just go to the top of a very high building or even just a moderate mountain, you can see the curvature. FYI.
I've been on top of mountains, and while the earth was a lot bumpier, it was still a carpet that stretched from horizon to horizon.

I dispute this. Do you forget what you have experienced just because you're not experiencing it at the moment? I suggest that his understading of his subjective perspective will be altered by his objective experiences. The perspectives do not meld together, but they do influence and interact with each other.
It's not a matter of memory! :) It's a matter of interpretation, just like the optical illusion.

I disagree. I don't see how we can separate "spirit" from reality. It is a part of us. Hell, according to my personal beliefs, it is us. We don't go about constantly aware of it because we don't have to, just like we don't have to be aware of our breathing all the time. But that does not mean we can't be aware of our breathing, or can't learn how it works and what it does, or even how to control it. I don't mean control in the sense of those silly "powers." I mean control in the sense of being able to expand our consciousness through it and, thus, expand our capabilities as beings in the universe -- our ability to learn, to empathize, to understand, to experience, and so forth.
According to my belief, it is "us", too. The difference between us seems to be that you insist on finding something real there, whereas I am content to understand it as an interpretion of our conscious existence.

It's as real as the perception of two faces on a page.
Just so.

I defy you to tell me what is unknowable. Name a thing that cannot be known. *moves pawn; sits back smugly*
The unknowable. :p

Bruarong

26-06-2006, 13:18

That's an observation. If we treat it as a conclusion, while knowing nothing about life itself, then it is an assumption.

There is no assumption in my statement. I said that as far as we have observed, life has only been observed to arise from life. This is a conclusion based on observation, and through it we know something about life itself, even while not knowing what it actually is. Knowledge of something immaterial like life is available, but complete/perfect knowledge may not be possible.

Just like knowing anything about the supernatural by studying ourselves is an assumption.

Yes, this is because such a conclusion is based on the assumption that we are products of the supernatural.

That's not a valid argument, and I'm sure glad I never made it about the supernatural. :)

My argument was that if we can know what life does, then we know something about life itself, even though life itself is immaterial.
What you said was this:

But that's knowledge about life-forms, not life. We have partial knowledge of life-forms. Biologists study life-forms, not life. We know nothing about life, if it is a thing, because it is immaterial --all we have is the idea of it, the concept.

And I think that knowledge about life-forms is also knowledge about life itself. We know something about life because we know what it can do, i.e. its properties. The same applies to something material, like a cell. Because we know the properties of a cell, we know something about the cell.

Simply because life might be immaterial, this does not prevent us from knowing something positive about life itself. Thus, we are capable of knowing about immaterial 'things'.

I'm not sure why you came out with such a radical position on this, Willamena, but I'm beginning to wonder if you have really thought this one through. If this is the reason why you think that we cannot know anything about the supernatural (because it is immaterial), I must say that I don't think much of your reasoning (in this case).

You just shot your argument in the foot. In the same way we cannot know anything about it, we cannot say we know anything about it. Else, it's just us saying what we think, not what is.

I don't know how you got that. I was simply pointing out that we humans are actually learning about human consciousness, despite it being immaterial.

And knowledge is what we think really is reality, not necessarily what is reality, since it depends on us 'knowing', and is limited to our perception of reality. We are trying to match our 'perception of reality' with 'reality', and of course we often get it wrong. Our knowledge is not perfect.

In order to know that we cannot know something about the supernatural, we have to know something about the supernatural. But if we don't know anything about the supernatural, the most reasonable conclusion is that we simply cannot say whether we can know anything about the supernatural. You, however, have been making a positive statement that you cannot know anything about the supernatural, which makes me wonder what you do know about the supernatural in order to arrive at such a conclusion. Or, if this is not a conclusion of yours, but an assumption, then you ought to admit as much. You are, of course, free to have your own favourite assumptions (everyone is, and assumptions are necessary), but if you claim to base your point of view on reasons, then you ought to be able to defend such a claim.

Edit: I see that you have already assumed that the supernatural is immaterial. Perhaps it really is, but how do you know that? I suggest that you have made an assumption, and have concluded that the supernatural is unknowable, based on an assumption.

Willamena

26-06-2006, 13:49

There is no assumption in my statement. I said that as far as we have observed, life has only been observed to arise from life. This is a conclusion based on observation, and through it we know something about life itself, even while not knowing what it actually is. Knowledge of something immaterial like life is available, but complete/perfect knowledge may not be possible.
But, as I said, we are studying life-forms, not life. It is a conclusion about life-forms, not life. If we use it as knowledge about a thing 'life', then that is an assumption. It can only be a conclusion about the things that were studied, not about something else. We cannot use it as a conclusion about something we know nothing about.

Yes, this is because such a conclusion is based on the assumption that we are products of the supernatural.
No, it is because nothing can be known about the supernatural by studying the natural.

My argument was that if we can know what life does, then we know something about life itself, even though life itself is immaterial.
Do we know what life does? Or do we know what life-forms do?

What you said was this:

And I think that knowledge about life-forms is also knowledge about life itself. We know something about life because we know what it can do, i.e. its properties. The same applies to something material, like a cell. Because we know the properties of a cell, we know something about the cell.

Simply because life might be immaterial, this does not prevent us from knowing something positive about life itself. Thus, we are capable of knowing about immaterial 'things'.
Knowledge of life-forms can only be knowledge of life if we define life in terms of life-forms. Do you agree with that?

What are the properties of life (as different from life-forms)? What are the proprerties of the idea of life (as different from the thing)?

I don't know how you got that. I was simply pointing out that we humans are actually learning about human consciousness, despite it being immaterial.

And knowledge is what we think really is reality, not necessarily what is reality, since it depends on us 'knowing', and is limited to our perception of reality. We are trying to match our 'perception of reality' with 'reality', and of course we often get it wrong. Our knowledge is not perfect.

In order to know that we cannot know something about the supernatural, we have to know something about the supernatural. But if we don't know anything about the supernatural, the most reasonable conclusion is that we simply cannot say whether we can know anything about the supernatural. You, however, have been making a positive statement that you cannot know anything about the supernatural, which makes me wonder what you do know about the supernatural in order to arrive at such a conclusion. Or, if this is not a conclusion of yours, but an assumption, then you ought to admit as much. You are, of course, free to have your own favourite assumptions (everyone is, and assumptions are necessary), but if you claim to base your point of view on reasons, then you ought to be able to defend such a claim.

Edit: I see that you have already assumed that the supernatural is immaterial. Perhaps it really is, but how do you know that? I suggest that you have made an assumption, and have concluded that the supernatural is unknowable, based on an assumption.
Consciousness is not an immaterial thing, it is a function of the brain.

My statement was that if the supernatural is, as I said, unknown and unknowable, then we cannot know anything about it. What naturally follows is if it is not, then we can. That is not a conclusion, and it is not an assumption - it is a premise and a conclusion - it is logic.

Bruarong

26-06-2006, 15:59

No, it is because nothing can be known about the supernatural by studying the natural.

How do you know that? Is it because you have defined the supernatural as being not natural? And if so, on what basis do you include such a definition? Where did you get the knowledge from in order to arrive at such a definition?

Do we know what life does? Or do we know what life-forms do?

We know what life is capable of by studying the life forms. We know that life can give rise to more life (i.e. reproduction). This is a property of life forms, and because it is a property found in every existing life form (although not necessarily every individual), one can conclude that reproducibility is a property of life.

Further, by contrasting living life forms to dead life forms, we can know something about life itself.

Knowledge of life-forms can only be knowledge of life if we define life in terms of life-forms. Do you agree with that?

I agree that definitions are very important here, and that we need to agree on our definitions if we want to avoid getting tangled up in semantics.

A life form is the material thing that 'houses' the life. It is the body, or the cell that carries life. Life itself is something else. It had no mass and seems to be accompanied by some sort of electric impulse (though it is obviously more than an electrical impulse). It might be immaterial, but we don't even know this. Perhaps it is some sort of energy, and if so, then it might belong to the material world. We know that we can (apparently) separate life from the body, but we don't know where life goes or what happens to it after death of the life form. Does it obey the laws of thermodynamics (as the life form does) or does it have another set of laws that have yet to be defined?

Consciousness is not an immaterial thing, it is a function of the brain.

How do you know it is material? By a movement of chemicals in the brain? And how is one to know which is the cause and which is the effect? Does the chemical movement cause consciousness, or does consciousness cause chemical movement? Does the car drive the driver, or does the driver drive the car?

You might as well argue that since love or imagination or intelligence are a functions of the brain, they also are not immaterial.

My statement was that if the supernatural is, as I said, unknown and unknowable, then we cannot know anything about it. What naturally follows is if it is not, then we can. That is not a conclusion, and it is not an assumption - it is a premise and a conclusion - it is logic.

But this is only because you have defined the supernatural as unknown and unknowable, not because you have some special knowledge of the supernatural. My problem with your logic is in your definitions, since I still don't know how you arrived at such a definition. People usually accept definitions on some sort of rational basis. What is yours?

Willamena

26-06-2006, 16:44

How do you know that? Is it because you have defined the supernatural as being not natural? And if so, on what basis do you include such a definition? Where did you get the knowledge from in order to arrive at such a definition?
Because if the supernatural was natural, we would not have two separate words in our language. One word would cover it all.

Obviously somebody somewhere down the line thought that this was a different thing than that, and deserved its own separate word. So they gave it one, one that means "above/beyond" nature. One that does not mean "equal to" nature.

So yes, it's because the word is defined that way that I think that the supernatural is not natural.

I agree that definitions are very important here, and that we need to agree on our definitions if we want to avoid getting tangled up in semantics.
That's funny! :) ...because semantics is the study of definitions, and is employed so that some agreement can be reached.

A life form is the material thing that 'houses' the life. It is the body, or the cell that carries life. Life itself is something else. It had no mass and seems to be accompanied by some sort of electric impulse (though it is obviously more than an electrical impulse). It might be immaterial, but we don't even know this. Perhaps it is some sort of energy, and if so, then it might belong to the material world. We know that we can (apparently) separate life from the body, but we don't know where life goes or what happens to it after death of the life form. Does it obey the laws of thermodynamics (as the life form does) or does it have another set of laws that have yet to be defined?

How do you know it is material? By a movement of chemicals in the brain?
I know it is not immaterial because of what immaterial means and because of what consciousness means. It's because I read the dictionary, that's how I know.

And how is one to know which is the cause and which is the effect? Does the chemical movement cause consciousness, or does consciousness cause chemical movement? Does the car drive the driver, or does the driver drive the car?
I don't know what causes consciousness, but the driver of the car is 'will', not consciousness.

You might as well argue that since love or imagination or intelligence are a functions of the brain, they also are not immaterial.
They aren't. Intelligence is the brain's ability to learn. Imagination is the brain's ability to image an interpretive reality. These are functional things. Love is a relationship a person builds with another.

Things that are imagined, on the other hand, are an example of something immaterial.

But this is only because you have defined the supernatural as unknown and unknowable, not because you have some special knowledge of the supernatural.
Right! That's the premise.

My problem with your logic is in your definitions, since I still don't know how you arrived at such a definition. People usually accept definitions on some sort of rational basis. What is yours?
Agnosticism: The belief that the existence of God or gods is unknown and/or inherently unknowable.

Muravyets

26-06-2006, 18:34

Gagh! "Physical" is a limit: it limits us to dealing with matter/energy and the relationships between them and filtering out all the rest of what might be reality; so we do know 'physical reality' has some limits.

The fellow who broke the speed limit just extended it --speed is a limit. The limit is still there. It hasn't gone anywhere, just changed in nominal value.

I suspect you are talking about the vision, not the capabilities of human beings. That has nothing to do with physical reality. I suspect you talk about something other than what you mean.

The physical world is ALL limits. It's what we compare ourselves to to know that we have the unbounded imagination.
No, I am not talking about something other than what I mean. It may seem that way to you because you are rejecting my basic premise that there is no difference between the material and the immaterial, the physical and the non-physical. You seem to be rejecting my premise and then trying to make my conclusions fit your premise. Only they don't fit. This is why I keep harping on "different ways of thinking."

I'm just going to say this one more time and then I'm going to quit banging my head against yours on this issue of limits, because at this point, we're like a couple of mountain goats.

My Point 1: A limit that keeps changing is no limit at all. A limit that is exceeded was never a limit to begin with.

My Point 2: Physical "limits" are not limits at all. They are merely descriptions of what we currently know, in accordance with the fragmentary nature of knowledge. They do not, in any way, imply that they represent all there is to know about a thing, i.e. the limit of it.

My Point 3: In the absence of any proof that a limit, such as the possible speed at which a human can run, CANNOT be exceeded, then the only "limits" that legitimately exist are the limits of what any given human can do at any given time. So, for the example of human speed, you may be able to say that "this human being cannot run faster than Xmph at this time, under these conditions," or you may be able to say that "no human being has ever run faster than Xmph." But you cannot say that "human begins cannot run faster than Xmph" because you don't know that.

Now let's switch the capability from running to knowing. You might be able to say that "no human being knows his own spirit." But when you say "human beings cannot know their own spirit," you are imposing an arbitrary limit of your own invention, just like the human speed limit.

My Point 4: The limits of what any given human can do at any given time is not really a limit because it can be changed and exceeded -- see Point 1 above.

Your example is looking at something entirely material.
My example is looking at something that started immaterial and ended up material.

I understand your position; you don't have to keep repeating that. :) I was just correcting what you'd "fed back" about mine that was incorrect.
Oh. I guess I'm not the only one who can be confusing. ;)

Perspective is determined by the viewer, yes. My position on perspective is not different from yours. But if you think of a camera, there is what the camera sees ...and then there is the cameraman. The cameraman is subjective to the camera. It cannot see him, unless of course he becomes 'no longer the camera man' and someone else holds it and points it at him. There is at least one thing that one persepective cannot do that the other can.

Now, make the cameraman entirely transparent in every measurable sense and you see that there is something that the subjective perspective can experience that the objective one can never.
He can point the camera at himself.

And here's another example of "plonking pragmatic empiricism." Who says seeing with the eyes is the only way of knowing something? Hm, W, my dear friend, you seem quick to reject my examples when I use material reality as an analogy, but equally quick to use material reality as analogy to push your own points. Just saying.

Irrationally denying obvious limits isn't helping your case. ;)
Meow to you, too. :p

I've been on top of mountains, and while the earth was a lot bumpier, it was still a carpet that stretched from horizon to horizon.
Maybe you need to climb higher mountains. I saw the curvature from the top of the WTC. I also saw it from the window of an airplane once. It was slight, but it was definitely observable.

It's not a matter of memory! :) It's a matter of interpretation, just like the optical illusion.
Memory influences interpretation.

According to my belief, it is "us", too. The difference between us seems to be that you insist on finding something real there, whereas I am content to understand it as an interpretion of our conscious existence.
And I don't understand why you think the interpretation of our conscious existence is not real.

Just so.
Well, since you were the one who said the faces on the page were real, I guess imagination and possibility must be real, too.

The unknowable. :p
You know it's name. So, you do know something about it. How can it be "unknowable" if you can know anything at all about it?

Willamena

26-06-2006, 21:17

He can point the camera at himself.
Then he is no longer the subject, and the camera has an objective perspective on him.

It doesn't matter if he gives the camera to someone else to point at him, or points at himself, we no longer have a subjective perspective if he is in the picture.

Willamena

26-06-2006, 23:26

No, I am not talking about something other than what I mean. It may seem that way to you because you are rejecting my basic premise that there is no difference between the material and the immaterial, the physical and the non-physical. You seem to be rejecting my premise and then trying to make my conclusions fit your premise. Only they don't fit. This is why I keep harping on "different ways of thinking."

I'm just going to say this one more time and then I'm going to quit banging my head against yours on this issue of limits, because at this point, we're like a couple of mountain goats.

My Point 1: A limit that keeps changing is no limit at all. A limit that is exceeded was never a limit to begin with.

My Point 2: Physical "limits" are not limits at all. They are merely descriptions of what we currently know, in accordance with the fragmentary nature of knowledge. They do not, in any way, imply that they represent all there is to know about a thing, i.e. the limit of it.

My Point 3: In the absence of any proof that a limit, such as the possible speed at which a human can run, CANNOT be exceeded, then the only "limits" that legitimately exist are the limits of what any given human can do at any given time. So, for the example of human speed, you may be able to say that "this human being cannot run faster than Xmph at this time, under these conditions," or you may be able to say that "no human being has ever run faster than Xmph." But you cannot say that "human begins cannot run faster than Xmph" because you don't know that.

Now let's switch the capability from running to knowing. You might be able to say that "no human being knows his own spirit." But when you say "human beings cannot know their own spirit," you are imposing an arbitrary limit of your own invention, just like the human speed limit.

My Point 4: The limits of what any given human can do at any given time is not really a limit because it can be changed and exceeded -- see Point 1 above.
You misunderstand what a limit is. Now, yes, this is because of my philosophy, and the shared philosophy of our modern world that created such a concept as "limits", but nevertheless, because you misunderstand what a limit is, you misrepresent it, and so your philosophy make sense to you. It makes no sense to me.

My example is looking at something that started immaterial and ended up material.
Alright, then I have no clue what you are talking about when you say, "...the subjective belief in the power to look inside a living human body to diagnose illness without killing the patient."

And here's another example of "plonking pragmatic empiricism." Who says seeing with the eyes is the only way of knowing something? Hm, W, my dear friend, you seem quick to reject my examples when I use material reality as an analogy, but equally quick to use material reality as analogy to push your own points. Just saying.
Certainly not me.

I do not reject your examples because you use material reality as an analogy, I reject them because you misrepresent things, like 'limit' and 'horizon'; I guess because their standard definitions don't fit into your philosophy.

But then there is nothing I can argue with.

And I don't understand why you think the interpretation of our conscious existence is not real.
Because of what "real" means: actual; true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.

The interpretation, like the illusion, is ostensible and apparent.

Well, since you were the one who said the faces on the page were real, I guess imagination and possibility must be real, too.
Are you joking, or did you miss the ambiguity? I can't tell, sorry.

Alif Laam Miim

26-06-2006, 23:56

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

Free from what?

If you are free, then you must have had bondage to something. Otherwise, how would one say that they are free? More importantly, why would anyone say that they are free? And if you are free, why are you free? What makes freedom so much better than bondage? If freeedom is better than bondage, is it because it is so? If it is such, what makes the condition that allows freedom to be better than bondage?

Moreover, on purpose - if we forge our own purpose, what purpose is there to forge the purpose that in turn gives us freedom and purpose? Or perhaps, if it is such that the human condition grants itself freedom and purpose, from what authority do we derive our purpose, supposing that any person could decide for themselves what it is that they are intended to do?

If we are all free, then we can assume that the Creator is likewise free. Otherwise, how would a Creator in bondage create something that is free, if all that the Creator knows is bondage? Regardless, why should it matter that there is a purpose?

More importantly, how can we say that we all forge our own purpose when inadvertently we immediately infringe on the purpose of others - since it is likely and perhaps true that one's purpose is to the undo the purpose of another person?

How can we say we have any purpose unless by intending it we design ourselves, in which case we should ask why we create ourselves?

Alif Laam Miim

27-06-2006, 00:03

I was discussing this with some friends.

My position is if one asks why we are here they must posit creator(s), since without intent the answer to 'why' is equal to the answer to 'how'. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, I'm trying to talk about meaning, not why we decide to do things or what potential an individual or humans might have. I'm talking about the age-old philosophical question.

The Question: Is Intent necessary for a Purpose to Life?

This automatically assumes that there is a purpose - in which case, the is yes, because no action by itself with a purpose cannot have an intention. Consider the words cognates of some sort.

If you intend to get some coffee, would it seem rational that you get up from your couch with the purpose to eat a big cake and not even touch the coffee [bearing in mind that your intention to drink coffee is apparent to you throughout the entire course of the action]?

Invalid Domain

27-06-2006, 00:39

to be honest i didn't read all of the above, so forgive me if i'm repeating:

noone can know the creator or the purpose in this life, so it doesn't matter. period

Alif Laam Miim

27-06-2006, 01:20

to be honest i didn't read all of the above, so forgive me if i'm repeating:

noone can know the creator or the purpose in this life, so it doesn't matter. period

I see... so you decide in some interest to reply to a question that has no meaning. Is it because you are so intent on proving that there is no purpose to the question or is it because the question begs the reply and there is nothing more than that? If it is impossible to know the creator or the purpose in this life, why is it possible to postulate the idea of such things? And even then, what prompts you to answer me if the answer doesn't matter? I know not for you, but me, it means everything, so I continue to ask my questions. If it means nothing to you, prove it and answer nothing. Otherwise, you forfeit yourself.

The Dangerous Maybe

27-06-2006, 02:41

The Question: Is Intent necessary for a Purpose to Life?

This automatically assumes that there is a purpose - in which case, the is yes, because no action by itself with a purpose cannot have an intention. Consider the words cognates of some sort.

Water, when I have taken a sip, has been given the purpose of satiating my thirst. It certainly has no conscious intent, but acts upon its purpose.

Alif Laam Miim

27-06-2006, 04:42

Water, when I have taken a sip, has been given the purpose of satiating my thirst. It certainly has no conscious intent, but acts upon its purpose.

You assume that intention requires conscious thought. Of course, you do state conscious intent, but the water ini itself is not a conscient entity, ergo it has not intent. However, its intention is present in itself and requires no thought to deem its own intentions. Given the natural laws and its disposition, water does what it is intended to do.

Of course, I would rather argue the purpose, since thirst is a desire in itself, a selfish desire that intends to satisfy itself, whose purpose is to horde water for itself. Is it the purpose of water to satisfy thrist? I do not know; I'm not water, and I cannot tell you what the water thinks. But I warrant that there is intention and purpose in any action, given certain dispositions and courses.

Let us say that a tree branch, by some grace of wind, falls off a tree and lands thirty feet down the road on top of a car. Is it by its intention that it fulfills its purpose to land on the car? Well, I cannot say what its purpose is, but given the wind, the branch mass, the time, the distance, and the car's position, its intention is pretty - that it is to land on the car [of course, it's much easier in the reflection of the past]. Whether its purpose is to land on the car or not is something I cannot say. And I don't mean to say that he branch actively chooses to follow upon its given intention - I didn't say that the branch has a conscious will to effect its intention.
If I were compare the branch to a person swinging a bat at the same car, it wouldd be easier to see the intention and the purpose, because both are nearly completely evident by the conscious decisions of the person. The person intends to damage the car with the bat - his purpose - though shaded - is likely to elicit some action from tthe owner of the car [grief, anger, rage, boredom, anxiety, etc...]. And even if not those, one could simply ask the person and he could explain his purpose in the action.

But let us suppose the same cup of water you sip. Is it the intention of water that it should satisfy your thrist, or is it that the intention of your thrist is to provide you with water, or is it that the intention of your action is to satisfy yourself by quelling the desire of thrist? In any case, who is the real perpetrator of the action in drinking the water and what is the ultimate purpose in the action?

Anglachel and Anguirel

27-06-2006, 05:06

But let us suppose the same cup of water you sip. Is it the intention of water that it should satisfy your thrist, or is it that the intention of your thrist is to provide you with water, or is it that the intention of your action is to satisfy yourself by quelling the desire of thrist? In any case, who is the real perpetrator of the action in drinking the water and what is the ultimate purpose in the action?

Sounds like some sort of mystic... Why must any of these be the perpetrator? Why can't they all have done what they needed/were intended to do? You're assuming that only one can be satisfied, while the others go unfulfilled.

If people feel better because they think they can know their purpose in life, then good for them. It seems to me that none of us has but one purpose, because our many actions have many consequences and effects. Yes, the cup of water is drunk. But it does not cease to be at that point, it merely continues on in other guise (aka piss and other bodily fluids). It really never ends, because the matter will continue on as matter or energy (barring some pretty strange quantum mechanics, which don't affect things on the macro scale anyway).

Muravyets

27-06-2006, 05:29

Then he is no longer the subject, and the camera has an objective perspective on him.

It doesn't matter if he gives the camera to someone else to point at him, or points at himself, we no longer have a subjective perspective if he is in the picture.
First, the camera does not have a perspective of its own, so if he points it at himself, then the perspective guiding the camera is still his and is still subjective. Second, if he gives the camera to you, then the perspective guiding the camera is yours and is still subjective.

Muravyets

27-06-2006, 05:59

Alright, then I have no clue what you are talking about when you say, "...the subjective belief in the power to look inside a living human body to diagnose illness without killing the patient."
Before we discovered how to do that with science and technology, doing it was understood to be a spiritual power that certain people could develop. Pretty much all spiritual traditions produced mystics who claimed to be able to do this by various esoteric means, i.e. using the subjective perspective. Nowadays, anyone can do this, using the material technology we have developed, i.e. using the objective perspective. But the only reason we developed this technology was because of that immaterial spiritual power.

Who knows? Maybe the mystics can do it via spiritual ability, but now, non-mystics can do it, too, because this ability can now be viewed from BOTH the subjective and objective perspectives.

Are you joking, or did you miss the ambiguity? I can't tell, sorry.
I was joking.

Now, as to the rest:

You misunderstand what a limit is. Now, yes, this is because of my philosophy, and the shared philosophy of our modern world that created such a concept as "limits", but nevertheless, because you misunderstand what a limit is, you misrepresent it, and so your philosophy make sense to you. It makes no sense to me.

Certainly not me.

I do not reject your examples because you use material reality as an analogy, I reject them because you misrepresent things, like 'limit' and 'horizon'; I guess because their standard definitions don't fit into your philosophy.

But then there is nothing I can argue with.

Because of what "real" means: actual; true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent.

The interpretation, like the illusion, is ostensible and apparent.
I have to tell you honestly, W, I'm quite a bit upset by this.

I don't understand what a limit is? I'm misrepresenting ideas and not using standard definitions?

You seem to be implying that I'm a liar, or maybe that I'm dumb. This is quite a shift from what you've been saying. You seem to have gone from exploring ideas to dismissing them, and even attacking me a little. I don't understand why you have a problem with my use of the terms. I've been very clear about how I'm using these terms, and you yourself have acknowledged that my usages are, in fact, among the standard definitions. I don't know where this is coming from. I thought we were having a good conversation.

You also seem to be deciding that my point of view is wrong. I've tried to be clear that I don't think either of us can say we're right or the other is wrong. Do you disagree? Have you been trying to show me the error of my ways and get me to say that you're right all this time? I honestly did not pick that up.

Whatever. If you think I'm wrong and you're right, prove it. Otherwise, I'm just going to say that we disagree and walk away.

I'm very unhappy about this. I was having such a good time. I'm sorry, but you really hurt my feelings with this.

Bruarong

27-06-2006, 09:41

Because if the supernatural was natural, we would not have two separate words in our language. One word would cover it all.

Obviously somebody somewhere down the line thought that this was a different thing than that, and deserved its own separate word. So they gave it one, one that means "above/beyond" nature. One that does not mean "equal to" nature.

So yes, it's because the word is defined that way that I think that the supernatural is not natural.

I thought that was quite obvious. But if you were following my point, you might see that the term 'supernatural' is quite an empty term, since it refers to anything that isn't natural. And since we can only know things that are natural (according to people in your position), we cannot know anything that is supernatural, and thus the supernatural cannot be known. Now that sort of reasoning is quite flawed, in my opinion, since it depends on being able to determine whether something is natural or supernatural, i.e., it depends upon our knowing whether it can be known.
Further, it disregards the possibility of knowing the supernatural, e.g. through something like relevation (e.g. the Bible). Your position does not even consider the possibility of knowing the supernatural, but rather removes this possibility through a semantics approach, not through a reasoned argument that deliberately focuses on the subject.

That's funny! :) ...because semantics is the study of definitions, and is employed so that some agreement can be reached.

It can also be used for other purposes, apparently.

I know it is not immaterial because of what immaterial means and because of what consciousness means. It's because I read the dictionary, that's how I know.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immaterial
''Having no material body or form.''

Do you still think that consciousness is material?

I don't know what causes consciousness, but the driver of the car is 'will', not consciousness.

What is will?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will
''The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action''

Would you say that the will is distinct from consciousness? Isn't will made possible through consciousness?

They aren't. Intelligence is the brain's ability to learn. Imagination is the brain's ability to image an interpretive reality. These are functional things. Love is a relationship a person builds with another.

Things that are imagined, on the other hand, are an example of something immaterial.

Anything that has no material form is immaterial. Thus, love, intelligence, imagination and relationships are all immaterial.

Right! That's the premise.

Agnosticism: The belief that the existence of God or gods is unknown and/or inherently unknowable.

In other words, you have arrived at the belief of Agnosticism through a set of definitions and assumptions, not through any knowledge of the supernatural or even a logical argument. Of course, given what we think are our human limitations, it is reasonable that every world view be based on a premise, and that since the premise is not testable, all that is left for us is to ensure that our basic premise is as reasonable and objective as we can make it.

The Dangerous Maybe

27-06-2006, 11:15

You assume that intention requires conscious thought. Of course, you do state conscious intent, but the water ini itself is not a conscient entity, ergo it has not intent. However, its intention is present in itself and requires no thought to deem its own intentions. Given the natural laws and its disposition, water does what it is intended to do.

I generally accepted the definition that intent is a conscious thought.

Of course, I would rather argue the purpose, since thirst is a desire in itself, a selfish desire that intends to satisfy itself, whose purpose is to horde water for itself. Is it the purpose of water to satisfy thrist? I do not know; I'm not water, and I cannot tell you what the water thinks. But I warrant that there is intention and purpose in any action, given certain dispositions and courses.

Of course not all water serves to quench my thirst. Only that water that I have which I have drank has been given that purpose through my action.

Let us say that a tree branch, by some grace of wind, falls off a tree and lands thirty feet down the road on top of a car. Is it by its intention that it fulfills its purpose to land on the car? Well, I cannot say what its purpose is, but given the wind, the branch mass, the time, the distance, and the car's position, its intention is pretty - that it is to land on the car [of course, it's much easier in the reflection of the past]. Whether its purpose is to land on the car or not is something I cannot say. And I don't mean to say that he branch actively chooses to follow upon its given intention - I didn't say that the branch has a conscious will to effect its intention.
If I were compare the branch to a person swinging a bat at the same car, it wouldd be easier to see the intention and the purpose, because both are nearly completely evident by the conscious decisions of the person. The person intends to damage the car with the bat - his purpose - though shaded - is likely to elicit some action from tthe owner of the car [grief, anger, rage, boredom, anxiety, etc...]. And even if not those, one could simply ask the person and he could explain his purpose in the action.

But let us suppose the same cup of water you sip. Is it the intention of water that it should satisfy your thrist, or is it that the intention of your thrist is to provide you with water, or is it that the intention of your action is to satisfy yourself by quelling the desire of thrist? In any case, who is the real perpetrator of the action in drinking the water and what is the ultimate purpose in the action?

The problem with my analogy is that my conscious intent still gives the water its purpose. There is still an intent necessary for purpose. However, when we replace ourselves with the natural forces that have sprung up with the advent of space and time, it gets a little muddled.

Do the forces that govern us have intent, do we have a purpose, and do those forces actually govern us?

Jocabia is looking into the first two questions, and asks "If we do have a purpose, must there be an intent that brings it about, i.e. a conscious creator." My answer was no, our place in reality is one in which we, from our creation, are required to serve reality in its whole. We have been given that purpose by an unconscious organic totality.

New Maastricht

27-06-2006, 11:20

Other: Regardless of Creators, there is no higher fate, no higher purpose, no higher destiny. We forge our own purpose. We are free.

For now...:(

Willamena

27-06-2006, 11:26

First, the camera does not have a perspective of its own, so if he points it at himself, then the perspective guiding the camera is still his and is still subjective. Second, if he gives the camera to you, then the perspective guiding the camera is yours and is still subjective.
The CAMERA is an analogy of perspective!

The fact that he has a perspective too is irrelevant to what I'm saying. HE IS THE SUBJECT OF HIS PERSPECTIVE, not its.

If we can keep to one subject, the analogy does work.

Willamena

27-06-2006, 11:45

Before we discovered how to do that with science and technology, doing it was understood to be a spiritual power that certain people could develop. Pretty much all spiritual traditions produced mystics who claimed to be able to do this by various esoteric means, i.e. using the subjective perspective. Nowadays, anyone can do this, using the material technology we have developed, i.e. using the objective perspective. But the only reason we developed this technology was because of that immaterial spiritual power.

Who knows? Maybe the mystics can do it via spiritual ability, but now, non-mystics can do it, too, because this ability can now be viewed from BOTH the subjective and objective perspectives.
Alright, then... how has "something immaterial ended up (being) something material" if we are talking about two different things, as we are? Nothing has changed.

I have to tell you honestly, W, I'm quite a bit upset by this.

I don't understand what a limit is? I'm misrepresenting ideas and not using standard definitions?

You seem to be implying that I'm a liar, or maybe that I'm dumb. This is quite a shift from what you've been saying. You seem to have gone from exploring ideas to dismissing them, and even attacking me a little. I don't understand why you have a problem with my use of the terms. I've been very clear about how I'm using these terms, and you yourself have acknowledged that my usages are, in fact, among the standard definitions. I don't know where this is coming from. I thought we were having a good conversation.

You also seem to be deciding that my point of view is wrong. I've tried to be clear that I don't think either of us can say we're right or the other is wrong. Do you disagree? Have you been trying to show me the error of my ways and get me to say that you're right all this time? I honestly did not pick that up.

Whatever. If you think I'm wrong and you're right, prove it. Otherwise, I'm just going to say that we disagree and walk away.

I'm very unhappy about this. I was having such a good time. I'm sorry, but you really hurt my feelings with this.
I didn't mean to imply that you do it on purpose, but that your misunderstanding is a result of your philosophy. And you're not the only one who is upset --I was being careful not to tred on your toes, but I guess I failed.

It's a wonder we can communicate at all, with how radically things are defined differently. For instance, a limit is not something that cannot be exceeded. Nowhere in its definition does it have that. A limit is not a limitation, it is simply the maximum something IS at any give time. It's a boundary. It has nothing to do with possibilities or the future. It does not change if its numerical value changes --whatever the value is the limit. You astounded me with that.

I am sorry you were hurt by what I said, but this conversation became no fun for me long ago.

Alif Laam Miim

27-06-2006, 15:13

Sounds like some sort of mystic... Why must any of these be the perpetrator? Why can't they all have done what they needed/were intended to do? You're assuming that only one can be satisfied, while the others go unfulfilled.

If people feel better because they think they can know their purpose in life, then good for them. It seems to me that none of us has but one purpose, because our many actions have many consequences and effects. Yes, the cup of water is drunk. But it does not cease to be at that point, it merely continues on in other guise (aka piss and other bodily fluids). It really never ends, because the matter will continue on as matter or energy (barring some pretty strange quantum mechanics, which don't affect things on the macro scale anyway).

I somewhat agree with you on the point that the drinking of the water is not in itself the end of a purpose. Unfortunately, I do believe that there is one central purpose to this world, otherwise, it's every man for himself/ woman for herself. That said, I'm not going to pretend that I know what it is, so I live according to what is given to me and what I can do with that which is given.

That said, I don't believe that there is only one action - I was asking to see how people would of the world - either as isolated events cumulating into a central thought or as connected events with a purpose in every action's doing.

I generally accepted the definition that intent is a conscious thought.

Well, then you and I sharer different definitions - yourxs more limited than mine.

Of course not all water serves to quench my thirst. Only that water that I have which I have drank has been given that purpose through my action.

I see... so the water that you drink has been given the very purpose of fulfilling your desire by your own actions. Whose actions are these then that fulfill the action? And likewise, if the water has been given that purpose, why do you sanction a purpose that seeks to satisfy itself?

The problem with my analogy is that my conscious intent still gives the water its purpose. There is still an intent necessary for purpose. However, when we replace ourselves with the natural forces that have sprung up with the advent of space and time, it gets a little muddled.

Do the forces that govern us have intent, do we have a purpose, and do those forces actually govern us?

Jocabia is looking into the first two questions, and asks "If we do have a purpose, must there be an intent that brings it about, i.e. a conscious creator." My answer was no, our place in reality is one in which we, from our creation, are required to serve reality in its whole. We have been given that purpose by an unconscious organic totality.

Alas, you think only thought can bear intention. But you said that already, so I cannot argue that. But even you concede in the end that something warrants our purpose beyond what even we conceive - some "unconscious organic totality". All that you have really done is made a sleeping God. Besides that, intention and purpose are not masters - they are means of the world to fulfill actions; they are servants. So in response to your questions, the forces that "govern" us have any intention required of every action - albeit not a conscious intent where the object can actively decide to act upon a certain purpose. We do have a purpose - what it is I won't say because I do not know. Who gives it us I cannot either say because unlike the dead, we still have our thoughts to decide whether to do or not to do. And finally, the forces that "govern" us are not Gods - they are rules of existence, the way that things can act. They are the servants, but likewise, we are not the masters. Otherwise, I wouldn't be writing this because it would be beyond any purpose.

Bruarong

27-06-2006, 16:16

I generally accepted the definition that intent is a conscious thought.

I would also say that intent is a conscious thought.

Jocabia is looking into the first two questions, and asks "If we do have a purpose, must there be an intent that brings it about, i.e. a conscious creator." My answer was no, our place in reality is one in which we, from our creation, are required to serve reality in its whole. We have been given that purpose by an unconscious organic totality.

But I don't understand how an unconscious organic totality could possible give us a purpose, because I have always attributed the act of 'giving' with intent. So an unconscious organic totality cannot give us anything, any more than the sun gives us light. I suppose, though, we would have to define the term 'giving' to make sense of this statement of yours.

And if our purpose is serve reality in its whole, are you suggesting that we serve reality simply by existing? Do you mean the human perception of reality, or reality itself? Because if you mean reality itself, then I cannot see how it is served by our existence. Presumeably, reality will continue long after we humans are gone, so reality is in no wise dependent upon our existence. But if you mean the human perception of reality, that means that we humans are here to serve the human perception of reality. I don't see this as a reasonable argument.

Willamena

27-06-2006, 19:06

I thought that was quite obvious. But if you were following my point, you might see that the term 'supernatural' is quite an empty term, since it refers to anything that isn't natural. And since we can only know things that are natural (according to people in your position), we cannot know anything that is supernatural, and thus the supernatural cannot be known. Now that sort of reasoning is quite flawed, in my opinion, since it depends on being able to determine whether something is natural or supernatural, i.e., it depends upon our knowing whether it can be known.

Further, it disregards the possibility of knowing the supernatural, e.g. through something like relevation (e.g. the Bible). Your position does not even consider the possibility of knowing the supernatural, but rather removes this possibility through a semantics approach, not through a reasoned argument that deliberately focuses on the subject.
You're right, it is flawed. 'Supernatural' does not mean 'not natural'. The supernatural and the natural are two different things, but that's saying something else entirely. Plus, speculation on the possibility of an unknowable thing existing does not depend on us knowing it; that's irrational.

I can assure you, there are no people like me (sigh).

I have no opinion on divine revelation, except to say that since we cannot rule out the supernatural explanation, how can we say that possibility of divine revelation is disregarded?

For the record, I do believe in god.

My response to you was a curt pointing at the dictionary, because your argument reflects nothing that *I* said.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immaterial
''Having no material body or form.''

Do you still think that consciousness is material?
Great! Now look up "conscious." Consciousness is the state of being conscious, and conscious is "aware of one's own existence, thoughts, etc." That describes a function of the body that operates through senses.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0384776.html

What is will?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/will
''The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action''

Would you say that the will is distinct from consciousness? Isn't will made possible through consciousness?
Absolutely, I would say that they are two different things, not the same thing. That the one might be "made possible through" the other only emphasizes that they are two different things.

Anything that has no material form is immaterial. Thus, love, intelligence, imagination and relationships are all immaterial.
So... 'going to the bathroom' is immaterial? It has no material substance of its own.

In other words, you have arrived at the belief of Agnosticism through a set of definitions and assumptions, not through any knowledge of the supernatural or even a logical argument. Of course, given what we think are our human limitations, it is reasonable that every world view be based on a premise, and that since the premise is not testable, all that is left for us is to ensure that our basic premise is as reasonable and objective as we can make it.
Your "other words", not mine.

You are correct, though: I have arrived at agnosticism through NO knowledge of what the supernatural is.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Is Intent Necessary for a Purpose to Life? - Page 2