The Futility of Reason

[Nick_A]

From the OP: 1 Corinthians 2: 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

If this is true it reveals the futility of human reason for answering the question of God other than theoretically. Only the Spirit of wholeness can reveal the truth to the essence of human being. But how to open to the spirit that can reveal the truth beyond what dualistic reason is capable of?

Modern secular society is reliant on intellectual reason to supply its meaning and purpose. IMO it has ignored two other connections our inner lives have with the external world: emotion and sensation. We value intellectual quality as essential for satisfying our needs for meaning and purpose. But what of emotional intelligence and sensitivity to physical sensations? If we are lacking in either how could we expect to appreciate the chaos of the human condition and invite the help of the Spirit to become more human?

The futility of reason simply means that reason is just a part of what connects us with the external world so we can experience it as it is. By itself it is very limited. If we do not sense or feel reality but imagine and justify it instead, how can we expect any conscious help for acquiring a realistic human perspective? It is blocked by imagination from entering into our psyche. Reason by itself lacks force. It is a useful and necessary for acquiring a human perspective but without emotional intelligence and physical sensitivity to act in cooperation with advanced reason, nothing can be done and it becomes normal to turn to hypocrisy. Modern society seeks to dull emotional intelligence and physical sensitivity in order to “outgrow” them and let society eliminate the need for them so as to become our God. It does seem to be getting its way.

[Reflex]

Using reason in the effort to go beyond that point is futile, but that does not mean the threshold cannot be passed by other means.

Ok. So what are those means?

Those "other means" have been articulated for thousands of years and are available online and in bookstores so I'm not going to waste my time with this question other than to quote the anonymous author of the Cloud of Unknowing: "By love he can be gotten and holden; by thought, never."


Woohoo! I'm mobile again! And not a moment too soon. I originally joined this forum to alleviate the boredom that comes with recuperation. I won't be visiting as often now.

[uwot]

Woohoo! I'm mobile again!

Congratulations and best wishes for your future health.

[uwot]

Modern secular society is reliant on intellectual reason to supply its meaning and purpose. IMO it has ignored two other connections our inner lives have with the external world: emotion and sensation.

Ok. So how does emotion inform the inner life about the external world?

[Nick_A]

Uwot wrote: Nick_A wrote:Modern secular society is reliant on intellectual reason to supply its meaning and purpose. IMO it has ignored two other connections our inner lives have with the external world: emotion and sensation.

Ok. So how does emotion inform the inner life about the external world?

Facts of our world are revealed through the sensitivity of our senses and our power of reason that draws associations between facts. However when facts are either intentionally or unintentionally used to create valid but untrue conclusions the process has been compromised. Our senses have been dulled over time. For example, do we see or hear as is capable for humanity? I would say no.

Neither our senses or our intellect allow us to feel objective value. Facts reveal truth but the emotions allow us to experience their value. Emotions allow us to feel the value of the external world in relation to the value of human conscious or spiritual potential. Just as our power of reason can be distorted to produce results contrary to our needs, we can acquire unnatural negative emotions that pervert our heart felt need for value.

The human condition has created a situation in which our senses have become dulled. Our reason is often used to create self justification at the expense of revealing truth and our emotions have become largely negative and serve the purpose of defending ones ego at the expense of the emotional experience of objective value - natural conscience as opposed to conditioned morality.

Under these conditions how can reason be anything other than futile? Simone Weil wrote:

Draft for a Statement of Human Obligation

Profession of Faith

There is a reality outside the world, that is to say, outside space and time, outside man's mental universe, outside any sphere whatsoever that is accessible to human faculties.

Corresponding to this reality, at the centre of the human heart, is the longing for an absolute good, a longing which is always there and is never appeased by any object in this world.

Another terrestrial manifestation of this reality lies in the absurd and insoluble contradictions which are always the terminus of human thought when it moves exclusively in this world.

Just as the reality of this world is the sole foundation of facts, so that other reality is the sole foundation of good……………………………………………...

Reason deals with facts and emotions reveal their value in relation to the Good” as described by Plato. When their powers are developed and facts are recognized in the context of the “good,” they produce a quality human perspective. A real philosopher worthy of the name would have the capacity to grow in their comprehensions of the contradictions Simone referred to. How many would have the dedication to truth at the expense of self justification to make it possible? Not many. That is why there are so few philosophers.

[uwot]

Facts of our world are revealed through the sensitivity of our senses and our power of reason that draws associations between facts.

Increasingly facts about the world are revealed through the sensitivity of the technology we invent to enhance our senses; various telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators and whatnot. These days, it is often the case that scientists are looking at banks of data on a computer screen and given the overwhelming amount of data that is produced in particle physics or genome research, for example, they will be looking at data that has been selected by an algorithm designed to look for particular patterns. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining )What this means in practise is that if you don't know what you are looking for, you are unlikely to find anything. It's pretty much as Einstein said: "Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed." Given that it is the theory that determines how you design an algorithm, this is more true than ever.
Once we have a bunch of data, as you say, we then use our power of reason to draw associations between facts. We have two basic tools for this, logic and mathematics. In the case of logic, we can create a story, that is consistent with the facts, that explains the mechanism responsible for the facts, but whatever it is, it is an hypothesis, not a fact and you can have any number of hypotheses to explain the same facts. Similarly with mathematics, different models can describe the same facts; we cannot tell which is The Truth, we can only know how well the correspond with the facts. Here's Einstein again: "In so far as theories of mathematics speak about reality, they are not certain, and in so far as they are certain, they do not speak about reality."

However when facts are either intentionally or unintentionally used to create valid but untrue conclusions the process has been compromised.

Well, as above, we simply don't know what the true conclusions are and we can never know that future observations will not falsify an hypothesis or model, so it is best to keep your options open.

Our senses have been dulled over time. For example, do we see or hear as is capable for humanity? I would say no.

You may be right. Do you have any evidence to support this belief?

Reason deals with facts and emotions reveal their value in relation to the Good” as described by Plato.

Do you really mean this? Plato's world of the forms is a refinement of Parmenides unchanging universe. I could go into a lot of detail if anyone is interested, but it is absolute cobblers.

When their powers are developed and facts are recognized in the context of the “good,” they produce a quality human perspective. A real philosopher worthy of the name would have the capacity to grow in their comprehensions of the contradictions Simone referred to. How many would have the dedication to truth at the expense of self justification to make it possible? Not many. That is why there are so few philosophers.

There are plenty of philosophers; the fact that you don't recognise them is just the No true Scotsman fallacy.

[Scott Mayers]

uwot,

On your last response to me, I don't have anything to disagree with you on except for two relatively trivial points.

(1) Confirmation IS a 'verification' of a hypothesis.

(2) While assuming one can posit an explanation of angels, as they can do so by simply saying, "God" for anything, my point is NOT to the shortcut explanations that merely assert something simpler. I disagree to the obscurity of parsimony as a sufficiently sound behavior for this very reason. If one asserts succinctness as a virtue, the ultimate "Occum's Razor" IS precisely, "God".

Rather, I think the quality of an explanation for phenomena requires relating such (a) in a much non-mystical, non-theologic, AND non-human centered terms. This last point is what we still do regardless since it is so hard to do in practice. And (b), explanations should be without ANY conflict to ANY other part of the same study. This is NOT the case in the 'fringe' sciences. (I use the word, "fringe" without the mystical extended interpretations, btw)

Relativity as presently interpreted conflicts with present interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. Yet we keep both thinking that as long as they don't interfere in practice, this is fine. However, this lacks a logical basis when we treat the explanations at present sufficient WITHOUT the burden of requiring a further experiment to go along with an alternate explanation where such an explanation does not go against any present observations. It is the extended requirement that is NOT a logical truth but a 'political' one often intended to preserve the integrity of institutions. Einstein, for instance, is a relative 'hero' and is indistinguishable from being a relative "prophet" that religions grant to their past heroes similarly. As such, institutes prefer that the Scientific method include a conservative 'clause' that places a higher burden of expectation upon others to require proposing novel explanations that could be better. It is THIS reason why Aristotle's interpretations were preserved regarding things like gravity, forces, or the Earth-centered theories, not because many people actually couldn't interpret a more rational justification by their contemporary evidence. They, like modern science (by most) requires we prove some novel theory in a arrogantly authoritarian system, even where such 'theories' ARE actually better and can be argued with such closure.

This was all my point is here. Science too is not immune from erring in their reason in some era. I see that what is common in all times is a cyclic nature of science and reasoning to be politically stifled when it gets to a certain point that threatens some evolved institution. It has already occurred many times in history. To me, our present institution with the prerequisite of requiring an experiment even to evolve or dislodge a theory is a severe anti-intellectual means. In the past, when Aristarchus asserted a solar-centered universe, they DID have ALL the evidence required in its day sufficient to 'prove' this. It took Galileo to 'prove' it to idiots who can't actually interpret logic that things have uniform acceleration through his experiments that ACTUALLY incidentally support (confirm) it when it was used to specifically determine the force of gravity on Earth. ...OR, which is more likely, the politics had a similar 'clause' to preserve the institutes then present (the Catholic Church) who couldn't risk allowing a logically improved explanation to persist when it threatened their present hero's credibility backed by their institution.

[Nick_A]

Uwot wrote: Increasingly facts about the world are revealed through the sensitivity of the technology we invent to enhance our senses; various telescopes, microscopes, particle accelerators and whatnot. These days, it is often the case that scientists are looking at banks of data on a computer screen and given the overwhelming amount of data that is produced in particle physics or genome research, for example, they will be looking at data that has been selected by an algorithm designed to look for particular patterns.

Orgasm is a fact of the world revealed by our senses. Is there a machine including enough data that will explain it so the experience is no longer necessary?

You may be right. Do you have any evidence to support this belief?

I know my talented ancestor had the capacity to distinguish colors matched by few if any. I know what has been done to crayons for kids making them less aware of color sensitivity. As a whole we lack color sensitivity and sensitivity to sound. In the East many can hear
music in quarter tones. Now in the West many cannot even distinguish semi tones. The experience of sense sensitivity is a type of nourishment for our psyche that is being sacrificed to technology.

Do you really mean this? Plato's world of the forms is a refinement of Parmenides unchanging universe. I could go into a lot of detail if anyone is interested, but it is absolute cobblers.

I would advise against it. Anything with any controversial depth will be torn apart. I learned that the hard way with the “Beauty” thread. Ain’t gonna work.

There are plenty of philosophers; the fact that you don't recognise them is just the No true Scotsman fallacy.

This is like saying there are plenty of Christians. But when a Christian is realistically defined as one who follows in the precepts of Christ, then we have to admit that there are very few Christians. It is the same with philosophers. How many intelligent lovers of wisdom are really out there willing to sacrifice pleasure for truth? We see many lovers of self justification who call themselves philosophers. In reality there are very few people worthy of the name philosopher.

[uwot]

(1) Confirmation IS a 'verification' of a hypothesis.

Well, what I said was:

Theories are not 'confirmed'; the predictions are either verified, or they are not and any complementary mathematical treatment either works or it doesn't.

It is the predictive power of an hypothesis which is confirmed, not the model on which it might be based.

(2) While assuming one can posit an explanation of angels, as they can do so by simply saying, "God" for anything, my point is NOT to the shortcut explanations that merely assert something simpler. I disagree to the obscurity of parsimony as a sufficiently sound behavior for this very reason. If one asserts succinctness as a virtue, the ultimate "Occum's Razor" IS precisely, "God".

Yes and no. It is quite true that some simple folk are prepared to accept god as a cause for everything. For all I know it is, but in that case the question simply changes from 'How does the world work?' to 'How does god do it?'

Relativity as presently interpreted conflicts with present interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.

This is frequently stated and jumped on by people who wish to argue that phycisists are talking nonsense. The fact is that both are extremely good at predicting behaviour.

Yet we keep both thinking that as long as they don't interfere in practice, this is fine. However, this lacks a logical basis when we treat the explanations at present sufficient WITHOUT the burden of requiring a further experiment to go along with an alternate explanation where such an explanation does not go against any present observations.

The point about physics is that is a series of tools that allow us to manipulate our environment. The explanation for why they work is only the subject of physics if it makes predictions that allow us to do that better. If an explanation " does not go against present observations", then it is metaphysics; it makes no difference.

It is the extended requirement that is NOT a logical truth but a 'political' one often intended to preserve the integrity of institutions.

You are straying into conspiracy theory here.

Einstein, for instance, is a relative 'hero' and is indistinguishable from being a relative "prophet" that religions grant to their past heroes similarly.

Religions tend to argue that their prophets are infallible. No physicist will claim the same for Einstein.

As such, institutes prefer that the Scientific method include a conservative 'clause' that places a higher burden of expectation upon others to require proposing novel explanations that could be better.

The conservative 'clause' is simply making use of tools that demonstrably work. Theoretical physics, in part, is the continuing efforts to generate better models

It is THIS reason why Aristotle's interpretations were preserved regarding things like gravity, forces, or the Earth-centered theories, not because many people actually couldn't interpret a more rational justification by their contemporary evidence.

Not true. I've already mentioned that Archimedes and Hipparchus used the geocentric model because it was better developed and made better predictions. In addition, Aristotle's model included an explanation for why earth falls and fire rises and for why the heavenly bodies appear to circle the Earth. We now know it is wrong, but in its time, it was fit for purpose.

They, like modern science (by most) requires we prove some novel theory in a arrogantly authoritarian system, even where such 'theories' ARE actually better and can be argued with such closure.

So what is your theory, and why is it better?

To me, our present institution with the prerequisite of requiring an experiment even to evolve or dislodge a theory is a severe anti-intellectual means.

You are entirely free to develop whatever metaphysical model pleases you, but if you want physicists to start using it, you need to develop a related mathematical treatment that is more accurate, or simpler, than the maths you intend to replace.

In the past, when Aristarchus asserted a solar-centered universe, they DID have ALL the evidence required in its day sufficient to 'prove' this.

What they had were points of light in the sky that did pretty much what the geocentric model said they would.

It took Galileo to 'prove' it to idiots who can't actually interpret logic that things have uniform acceleration through his experiments that ACTUALLY incidentally support (confirm) it when it was used to specifically determine the force of gravity on Earth. ...OR, which is more likely, the politics had a similar 'clause' to preserve the institutes then present (the Catholic Church) who couldn't risk allowing a logically improved explanation to persist when it threatened their present hero's credibility backed by their institution.

Aristotle's model is logically valid; it just happens to be wrong. It wasn't logic that proved this, it was the enhanced observations made possible by the telescope. But yes, the behaviour of the catholic church was shabby. Ironically, Hans Lippershey's design of the telescope was stolen by a catholic priest who was on the patent board. He took it to the Vatican who promptly handed it to the foremost scientist of the time. He discovered the Galilean moons of Jupiter and the waxing and waning of Venus, proving that the Earth is not the centre of god's creation. He also discovered the mountains on the moon, proving that everything in 'heaven' is not perfect. In gratitude, Galileo was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life and Hans Lippershey was refused a patent on the grounds that everyone now knew what a telescope was.

[uwot]

Orgasm is a fact of the world revealed by our senses. Is there a machine including enough data that will explain it so the experience is no longer necessary?

I think you are missing the point, which takes some doing. Orgasm has been known about since before there was any technology at all, before we even had opposable thumbs; so a machine to explain it is superfluous. You are stumbling into Frank Jackson's 'Mary's room argument' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument ). Anyway, you can give yourself as many orgasms as you wish, but you will be none the wiser about particle physics for it.

I know my talented ancestor had the capacity to distinguish colors matched by few if any.

No idea who your talented ancestor was. I went to art school, so I have some appreciation of colour theory, but I know and work with artists; their ability to distinguish, mix and create colours is astonishing.

I know what has been done to crayons for kids making them less aware of color sensitivity.

Oh? And what is that?

As a whole we lack color sensitivity and sensitivity to sound.

Actually, if you read classical literature the range of colours described is very limited; blood is red, but pretty much everything else is 'bronze coloured'. Our sensitivity to colour, if anything, is getting better.

In the East many can hear music in quarter tones. Now in the West many cannot even distinguish semi tones. The experience of sense sensitivity is a type of nourishment for our psyche that is being sacrificed to technology.

"The East" is a big place. What research are you referring to?

Anything with any controversial depth will be torn apart. I learned that the hard way with the “Beauty” thread.

I don't think your "Beauty" thread was torn apart for its controversial depth.

There are plenty of philosophers; the fact that you don't recognise them is just the No true Scotsman fallacy.

This is like saying there are plenty of Christians. But when a Christian is realistically defined as one who follows in the precepts of Christ, then we have to admit that there are very few Christians. It is the same with philosophers. How many intelligent lovers of wisdom are really out there willing to sacrifice pleasure for truth? We see many lovers of self justification who call themselves philosophers. In reality there are very few people worthy of the name philosopher.

No idea what point you are trying to make; you just keep repeating the same fallacy.

[Greta]

This thread appears to be a long exposition of the knowledge argument.

[uwot]

This thread appears to be a long exposition of the knowledge argument.

Can't see it myself, but I'd be happy to hear your reasoning.

[Dontaskme]

Mind can understand itself, because that's the only place you can exist,what remains after that is nothing appearing as everything.

[Greta]

This thread appears to be a long exposition of the knowledge argument.

Can't see it myself, but I'd be happy to hear your reasoning.

Basically a few people are arguing that actual experience of something provides information that analysis can't yield. So, in the Mary's Room thought experiment, Mary learns something new when she sees the colour "red" for the first time even though she may have a strong theoretical understanding of colour. The experience yields new information.

So our new age members like to point out that reason cannot tell us about give us the experiences that life is purportedly all about. However, like competitive barristers, they strategically avoid mention of the other side - that reason provides us with understanding that mindless experience cannot.

Not that any of this is even close to news; any trainer will tell you that students need both theory and practice to optimise competence in a given field.

[uwot]

Basically a few people are arguing that actual experience of something provides information that analysis can't yield.

Ah! I see your point. I suppose the difference is that introducing Mary to the experience of red is a simple matter of putting something red in front of her. None of the methods proposed for experiencing some god or other are anything like as efficacious.