Philosophy Now Forum

Blaggard wrote: I appreciate the complexity of the universe, the beauty of a mountain landscape, the sublime shades of a rose and the fractal nature of a trees branches. I likewise appreciate the myriad of cells that interact in complexity to produce energy and materials to form that flower; and the millions of years of geological process that led the mountains to their heights; and how each branch of a tree follows a simple pattern of division, to emerge at the most efficient configuration for maximising the area of coverage of its leaves, so as to absorb light most efficiently.

Hjarloprillar wrote:

Blaggard wrote: I appreciate the complexity of the universe, the beauty of a mountain landscape, the sublime shades of a rose and the fractal nature of a trees branches. I likewise appreciate the myriad of cells that interact in complexity to produce energy and materials to form that flower; and the millions of years of geological process that led the mountains to their heights; and how each branch of a tree follows a simple pattern of division, to emerge at the most efficient configuration for maximising the area of coverage of its leaves, so as to absorb light most efficiently.

B

Poetic and beautifully worded

I tilt cap and offer to shake [hands].
very well said.

Prill

Hjarloprillar wrote:"Any proposition can be an axiom, in the case of the above its truth or falsity depends upon the Logic being used."

No it depends on parameters of question being asked.

Blaggard wrote:

skakos wrote:
There are also people who EXPERIENCE Near Death Experiences.
But I guess you do not accept these EXPERIENCES because you did not have them your self.
As with colours, it is not only a matter of "lack of experience".
It is a matter of DIFFERENT experiences!
I see red.
You may see yellow.
Or grey...

And no, I am correct!

Did you know you can induce NDEs by giving people large doses of tranquillisers. The feeling you are floating above your body, the feeling of euphoria, the sense of other worldliness.

The studies around NDEs such as there are are pretty conclusive that there is no astral projection going on, and it seems the reason so many people experience them is more due to the fact that anyone can be made to experience them with the right drugs. It's easy enough to test although clearly people don't inconveniently die and experience them. Most research is anecdotal based and doesn't really tell you anything about the experience.

As to whether people leave their bodies and view themselves well that is easy to test put a random 6 digit number on a high shelf and ask the person to tell you what it was when they wake up.

henry quirk wrote:"There are also people who EXPERIENCE Near Death Experiences."

Sure...they have hallucinations or dreams...internal, subjective, events rooted in the recursive nature of the human brain.

The biological event leading to the NDE is real; the interpretation of the event 'as' out-of-body is not.

#

"But I guess you do not accept these EXPERIENCES because you did not have them your self."

Don't think I even hinted at such a thing anywhere in this thread.

#

"I see red. You may see yellow. Or grey..."

Yeah, physical differences between our eyes (color blindness on my part, for example) may lead to differing interpretations of 'red', but 'red' itself is in the light, my interpretation of 'red' is the result of my eye and brain (me).

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

skakos wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:My point earlier was that many that follow science, can only believe, not know, that any particular finding is accurate/true, they take it on faith, much like one does that reads the bible, and that just like the bible, the information could be fictitious from an absolute/universal perspective, or maybe not. Only the scientists conducting the experiments could know, but even that's not always sure.

Then, I for one, wonder why most that follow science, speak of it, as if they just saw god! That is, with so much conviction, that they believe it trumps alternate views. Just that someone studies such things, on a daily basis, does not 'necessarily' speak of their accuracy, not even their conviction, as sometimes it may just be a job, to get money, to survive, as this particular human construct, demands. Whenever one can see a hint of potential, conflict of interest, it should cause their skepticism, to kick in, not definitively of course, yet ever hovering in the wings, of ones mind.

When considering Science, I remember this proverb:

'Men are four:

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;
He who knows not, and knows he knows not;
He who knows and knows not he knows;
He who knows and knows he knows.'

Yet when analyzing it, I wonder how one could ever 'truly know' which of the four applies to them, as not knowing precludes knowing?

I see that in truth, like Socrates noted, we can only ever be sure, that #2 applies to us, or in his words, 'I only know that I know nothing.' As at least I see, that knowing something is at the end of the line, not ever being capable of further refinement, otherwise merely belief. The problem is, how can one 'know,' they are at its end? It's not like there is a big printed sign from god that says, "you have completed this quest, congratulations!" I guess we just keep making educated guess's, then supply maths, that seemingly support them, as if it's absolutely definitive, the actual truth/fact of the matter, universally speaking.

The "end" is getting back at the beginning...
Rather, it's looking back to find the truth of the beginning, thus putting the now into it's proper perspective, so that the future can be built smartly.

When we started analyzing things, we started destroying them. We started cutting them into pieces so that they fir the little boxes we have in our mind.
Rather, we take things apart, to understand their components, so as to understand the origin. We only destroy, not even as much as the universe destroys itself, due to it's physics; entropy; it's truth of actuality, we can only hope to fully understand, from day to day. And I'm sure that allowing ones mind to bias their findings, does happen, from time to time, as not everyone's perfect when modelling the experiments, considering the wisdom implied in the "Scientific Method," to it's fullest extent, thus leaving some type of bias in place, flavoring their findings.

Too much analysis of the world, destroys its true essence...
Totally absurd! Though I do see how one could imagine the possibility that messing with molecular structure, could be dangerous, what with understanding fusion and fission, thus bosons and beyond, who knows until one gets there, if they've done something they shouldn't have or not, it's easy to not have faith in a scientists controls, that you don't even know. I mean, do they have the right stuff, or not? And would/could one even know for sure, else run away in fear, screaming about demons and such! Of course one can learn!

One should not speak definitively, when in fact they are not necessarily capable of knowing something in truth; in all actuality, all certainty! Characterizations are easy, often a figment of ones own bias. Knowledge and wisdom are the keys to understanding; insuring a scientific approach, with proper controls, of impeccable logic, based upon a solid a knowledge as possible, of the broadest, all inclusive scientific understanding, of the universe complete. Then one can have the truest of visions, bar none. Of course one must keep "wants for self" out of the mix, for the most factual actuality.

Blaggard wrote:@skatos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSZNsIFID28

I've never understood the reasoning behind claiming understanding thing is somehow detrimental to the process of wonder and hence detrimental to the appreciation of life in all it's amazing configurations, Feynman sums it up best. A very short excerpt from ode to a flower.

I appreciate the complexity of the universe, the beauty of a mountain landscape, the sublime shades of a rose and the fractal nature of a trees branches. I likewise appreciate the myriad of cells that interact in complexity to produce energy and materials to form that flower; and the millions of years of geological process that led the mountains to their heights; and how each branch of a tree follows a simple pattern of division, to emerge at the most efficient configuration for maximising the area of coverage of its leaves, so as to absorb light most efficiently.

These people who think knowledge subtracts from beauty are missing the whole picture of what makes the universe such a marvel, as such nothing you understand makes such a thing less special, it just dispenses of superfluous stuff that you can't see or prove anyway, like revealing the man behind the curtain is in fact Oz. To claim a person of a more realist bent sees the world as some sort of grey funk, is actually ignorant, who are you to speak for my appreciation of the majesty of everything?

skakos wrote:

Blaggard wrote:

skakos wrote:
There are also people who EXPERIENCE Near Death Experiences.
But I guess you do not accept these EXPERIENCES because you did not have them your self.
As with colours, it is not only a matter of "lack of experience".
It is a matter of DIFFERENT experiences!
I see red.
You may see yellow.
Or grey...

And no, I am correct!

Did you know you can induce NDEs by giving people large doses of tranquillisers. The feeling you are floating above your body, the feeling of euphoria, the sense of other worldliness.

The studies around NDEs such as there are are pretty conclusive that there is no astral projection going on, and it seems the reason so many people experience them is more due to the fact that anyone can be made to experience them with the right drugs. It's easy enough to test although clearly people don't inconveniently die and experience them. Most research is anecdotal based and doesn't really tell you anything about the experience.

As to whether people leave their bodies and view themselves well that is easy to test put a random 6 digit number on a high shelf and ask the person to tell you what it was when they wake up.

Actually no, because during NDEs the person is brain dead.
You know, DEAD.
Big difference.
Try to have conscious experience with a flat encephalogram.
Or, I will make it easier for you: Try to have a conscious experience while you have fainted.

I don't know if skakos qualifies; from what I gather, he is a Greek bloke, Spiros Kakos, who has written a book http://harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.c ... ation.html has a blog and a twitter account and appears to take the stuff he posts seriously. Maybe it's all an elaborate troll, but it's not clear why I should care.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:My point earlier was that many that follow science, can only believe, not know, that any particular finding is accurate/true, they take it on faith, much like one does that reads the bible, and that just like the bible, the information could be fictitious from an absolute/universal perspective, or maybe not. Only the scientists conducting the experiments could know, but even that's not always sure.

Then, I for one, wonder why most that follow science, speak of it, as if they just saw god! That is, with so much conviction, that they believe it trumps alternate views. Just that someone studies such things, on a daily basis, does not 'necessarily' speak of their accuracy, not even their conviction, as sometimes it may just be a job, to get money, to survive, as this particular human construct, demands. Whenever one can see a hint of potential, conflict of interest, it should cause their skepticism, to kick in, not definitively of course, yet ever hovering in the wings, of ones mind.

When considering Science, I remember this proverb:

'Men are four:

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;
He who knows not, and knows he knows not;
He who knows and knows not he knows;
He who knows and knows he knows.'

Yet when analyzing it, I wonder how one could ever 'truly know' which of the four applies to them, as not knowing precludes knowing?

I see that in truth, like Socrates noted, we can only ever be sure, that #2 applies to us, or in his words, 'I only know that I know nothing.' As at least I see, that knowing something is at the end of the line, not ever being capable of further refinement, otherwise merely belief. The problem is, how can one 'know,' they are at its end? It's not like there is a big printed sign from god that says, "you have completed this quest, congratulations!" I guess we just keep making educated guess's, then supply maths, that seemingly support them, as if it's absolutely definitive, the actual truth/fact of the matter, universally speaking.

skakos wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

skakos wrote:
The "end" is getting back at the beginning...
Rather, it's looking back to find the truth of the beginning, thus putting the now into it's proper perspective, so that the future can be built smartly.

When we started analyzing things, we started destroying them. We started cutting them into pieces so that they fir the little boxes we have in our mind.
Rather, we take things apart, to understand their components, so as to understand the origin. We only destroy, not even as much as the universe destroys itself, due to it's physics; entropy; it's truth of actuality, we can only hope to fully understand, from day to day. And I'm sure that allowing ones mind to bias their findings, does happen, from time to time, as not everyone's perfect when modelling the experiments, considering the wisdom implied in the "Scientific Method," to it's fullest extent, thus leaving some type of bias in place, flavoring their findings.

Too much analysis of the world, destroys its true essence...
Totally absurd! Though I do see how one could imagine the possibility that messing with molecular structure, could be dangerous, what with understanding fusion and fission, thus bosons and beyond, who knows until one gets there, if they've done something they shouldn't have or not, it's easy to not have faith in a scientists controls, that you don't even know. I mean, do they have the right stuff, or not? And would/could one even know for sure, else run away in fear, screaming about demons and such! Of course one can learn!

One should not speak definitively, when in fact they are not necessarily capable of knowing something in truth; in all actuality, all certainty! Characterizations are easy, often a figment of ones own bias. Knowledge and wisdom are the keys to understanding; insuring a scientific approach, with proper controls, of impeccable logic, based upon a solid a knowledge as possible, of the broadest, all inclusive scientific understanding, of the universe complete. Then one can have the truest of visions, bar none. Of course one must keep "wants for self" out of the mix, for the most factual actuality.

Analysis works only if you know that the whole is just the sum of its parts.
Yes, but the math can sometimes be more complicated than any man is capable of understanding!

But this is almost never the case.
Not at all, from my perspective.

Does water have the properties of oxygene and hydrogen combined?
Yes, as it can have no other! The properties are in fact those of combining hydrogen and oxygen as with the formula H2(subscripted)O.

Is human just a sum of cells and innanimate matter?
Exactly that, and nothing more, though specifically organized in such a way!

Surely no...
Then surely you're god fearing, believing in magic, and other things never seen, only of one's imagination.

uwot wrote:I don't really know what a troll is, despite having been called one on occasion. As far as I can tell it's a catch all phrase for anyone you happen not to like, but have never actually met. Apparently, some play some odd, but as far as I can tell harmless games, for their own amusement, although there are others that have allegedly turned nasty. I don't know if skakos qualifies; from what I gather, he is a Greek bloke, Spiros Kakos, who has written a book http://harmonia-philosophica.blogspot.c ... ation.html has a blog and a twitter account and appears to take the stuff he posts seriously. Maybe it's all an elaborate troll, but it's not clear why I should care.

5dman wrote:Can we ever imagine that the basic framework of our scientific thinking will be expanded ?
Mainstream thinking says we exist in 4-d space-time. And although there are theoretical notions of higher (spatial?) dimensions arising from string theory - these may be redundant and arguably don't satisfy a need for plain common-sense interpretation at the fundamental framework level - required to 'stretch a canvas' upon which our scientific ideas can be painted.

On the other hand, are we still missing something far more fundamental from our scientific worldview ?
That being the non-physical, or dare I say 'spiritual' aspects of existence. (e.g. emergent properties that are more than just chemical and electrical signals)

Is it time to recognize a non-physical (/ spiritual) dimension in our scientific worldview?

http://5dview.wix.com/spiritual-dimension