Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are thoughts transcendant?
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 105 of 142 (430169)
10-23-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Kitsune
10-23-2007 5:15 AM


Re: On thought and telepathy
I'm just tempted to reply to this bit:
But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock?
Let's see, from my standpoint:
philosophy = metaphysical navel gazing. Put two philosophers in a room, ask whether the sky is blue, and you'll get three mutually contradictory answers.
religion = belief in the existence of something in the face of and in spite of an utter lack of evidence for that something. IOW, willfull self-delusion.
In a word: yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Kitsune, posted 10-23-2007 5:15 AM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by petrophysics1, posted 10-23-2007 7:10 PM Quetzal has replied

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024