Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[Ren]

Ok, here is the passage from Popper. Conjectures and Refutations, Chapter 2, Part II.

"I know, of course, that many people talk nonsense; and it is conceivable that it should become one's task (an unpleasant one) to unmask somebody's nonsense, for it may be dangerous nonsense. But I believe that some people have said things which were not very good sense, and certainly not very good grammar, but which were all the same highly interesting and exciting, and perhaps more worth listening to than the good sense of others. I may mention the differential and integral calculus which, especially in its early forms, was no doubt completely paradoxical and nonsensical by Wittgenstein's (and other) standards; which became, however, reasonably well founded as the result of some hundred years of great mathematical efforts; but whose foundations even at this very moment are still in need, and in the process, of clarification.

We might remember in this context that it was the contrast between the apparent absolute precision of mathematics and the vagueness and imprecision of philosophical language which deeply impressed the earlier followers of Wittgenstein. But had there been a Wittgenstein to use his weapons against the pioneers of the calculus, and had he succeeded in eliminating their nonsense where their contemporary critics (such as Berkeley, who was fundamentally right) failed, he would have strangled one of the most fascinating and philosophically important developments in the history of thought.

No doubt we should all train ourselves to speak as clearly, as precisely, as simply, and as directly, as we can. Yet I believe that there is not a classic of science, or of mathematics, or indeed a book worth reading that could not be shown, by a skilful application of the technique of language analysis, to contain many meaningless pseudo-propositions..."

 

[Ren]

@Sidis Coruscatis @Anomaly

Professor Popper makes a good point, doesn't he?

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. Does he convince you, or is he answering a slightly different problem?

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

@Sidis Coruscatis @Anomaly

Professor Popper makes a good point, doesn't he?

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. Does he convince you, or is he answering a slightly different problem?

Okay, there's a difference between macro and micro scale communication. I guess I should have...clarified that.

There's also the discrepancy between the speaker being clear within the frame of their understanding, and clear transference of their meaning. Scripture is actually a good example of this, as there should be no reason for its scribes to be intentionally misleading or vague, but despite that there's still an ongoing exegesis. It's analogous to the calculus example.

 

[Anomaly]

@Sidis Coruscatis @Anomaly

Professor Popper makes a good point, doesn't he?

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. Does he convince you, or is he answering a slightly different problem?

I would say that there should be a balance of both, with respect to the value of what appears preposterous at the onset (which is what Professor Popper alluded to). So, in the unmasking of said nonsense, a degree of openness in that there exist things which are outside of our own realm of experience. Furthermore, while in consideration to those things which conflict with the varied perspectives/perceptions/experience of the individuals involved in such discourse. Thus, in that willingness to consider that which is 'nonsense' we can perceive our own 'ignorance' which shields us from fully understanding it (in which case you'd merely need to challenge your own ignorance). Or, we can face our pride in being certain that we are correct, and that the other is in fact nonsensical. I think unveiling nonsense with a degree of humility is appropriate. Just because something appears absurd to you, doesn't mean that it is in fact absurd. As with anything which requires understanding, one only need observe and ponder from a different angle. Often, in doing so, there you can find meaning where there was none.

Edited to provide an example from real life:
I am at a bar, and there is a guy speaking of the Earth being flat.
I am left with no choice but to correct him (given my own nature), but how I do this is integral.
Of course, there is the initial unveiling of 'nonsense', and the calling it into question.
Then, if I allow myself to listen to his arguments (nonsensical as they may be), I open myself up to be willing to be wrong, to be enlightened or even amused by his postulations.
In this continual discourse, I will be given insight into his experience, his perspective, and therefore, I can appreciate it and value it regardless of it being incorrect given what is known at this given moment about the Earth.
However, if I had merely unveiled his nonsensical statements, and left him to stew in that revelation, he'd have no further basis to question it, nor an opportunity to reveal that he could indeed be correct given knowledge of which I was unaware. Thus, I rob myself of the experience, and I rob him of the possibility of being correct.

 

[John K]

@Sidis Coruscatis @Anomaly

Professor Popper makes a good point, doesn't he?

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. Does he convince you, or is he answering a slightly different problem?

It's often easier to explore the essentials of something by looking at its extreme points rather than at its core, and it's interesting that Popper examines the issue of clarity in thought and expression using mathematics. It seems to me that for most people maths lies at the firinges of expression, because it is rather esoteric.

This raises the issue very nicely that the success of mathematical thought and expression lies necessarily (though of course not sufficiently) with the competence of both the thinker and with the target audience to articulate and decipher the communication. The thinker cannot just express an idea, but must attune its expression to the audience - if this is not an audience with the right level of competence in the vehicle of expression, then it has to be translated into some sort of vernacular, and this is practically impossible with maths, so the audience has to be mathematically competent if they are going to receive the communication.

That takes me to a follow on aspect of this. Mathematics is my academic background, and it's very much the case in maths that lucidity of expression is far less of a priority than is precision and logical utility. The assumption always is that the reader needs to put the effort in to understand the content, and it's their lack of competence or laziness if they are unable or unwilling to do that. I've amplified this to make the point and it isn't as dichotomous as that, but there is far more expectation that the onus is on the recipient to put the necessary work in than seems to be the case in other fields.

On a more general note, I find what Popper says is pretty compelling for another reason. It's more than likely that creative novelty in thought comes from exploring what seems like nonsense at first - not only may it sound like nonsence, it may actually be nonsense too, but nonsense that may act as a stepping stone to a major breakthrough in thought. Without a suspension of premature dismissal we woud miss some of the great ideas and paradigm shifts of history. Think of Wigner and the theory of continental drift for example. This probationary leniency in judgement appeals to me very much from a dominant Ni perspective .

 

[o2b]

as there should be no reason for its scribes to be intentionally misleading or vague, but despite that there's still an ongoing exegesis.

Well...

I actually think the Bible is intentionally vague.

Just a couple examples.

Proverbs 1:5-6
5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,
6 To understand a proverb and an enigma,
The words of the wise and their riddles.

This one is neat. It's long, but I think it's cool. I think Joseph is a type of God and His revelation of Himself.

Genesis 42:7a,8,14,24a
7a Joseph saw his brothers and recognized them, but he acted as a stranger to them and spoke roughly to them.
8 So Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him.

14 But Joseph said to them, “It is as I spoke to you, saying, ‘You are spies!’

24a And he turned himself away from them and wept.

Genesis 45:4-5
4 And Joseph said to his brothers, “Please come near to me.” So they came near. Then he said: “I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. 5 But now, do not therefore be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.

Genesis 50:19-21
19 Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. 21 Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

There are so many examples of this. Look how God is described here:

Psalm 7:11-13
11 God is a just judge,
And God is angry with the wicked every day.
12 If he does not turn back,
He will sharpen His sword;
He bends His bow and makes it ready.
13 He also prepares for Himself instruments of death;
He makes His arrows into fiery shafts.

And then closely examine what actually happens.

Psalm 7:14-16
14 Behold, the wicked brings forth iniquity;
Yes, he conceives trouble and brings forth falsehood.
15 He made a pit and dug it out,
And has fallen into the ditch which he made.
16 His trouble shall return upon his own head,
And his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown.

I think this is pretty much the entirety of how the Bible both conceals and reveals. As Isaiah 28 says Scripture must be compared with Scripture. Like doing word studies. Speaking of which (and hearkening back to the Psalm text):

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

Well...

I actually think the Bible is intentionally vague.

Just a couple examples.

Proverbs 1:5-6
5 A wise man will hear and increase learning,
And a man of understanding will attain wise counsel,
6 To understand a proverb and an enigma,
The words of the wise and their riddles.

This one is neat. It's long, but I think it's cool. I think Joseph is a type of God and His revelation of Himself.

Genesis 42:7a,8,14,24a
7a Joseph saw his brothers and recognized them, but he acted as a stranger to them and spoke roughly to them.
8 So Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him.

14 But Joseph said to them, “It is as I spoke to you, saying, ‘You are spies!’

24a And he turned himself away from them and wept.

Genesis 45:4-5
4 And Joseph said to his brothers, “Please come near to me.” So they came near. Then he said: “I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold into Egypt. 5 But now, do not therefore be grieved or angry with yourselves because you sold me here; for God sent me before you to preserve life.

Genesis 50:19-21
19 Joseph said to them, “Do not be afraid, for am I in the place of God? 20 But as for you, you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, in order to bring it about as it is this day, to save many people alive. 21 Now therefore, do not be afraid; I will provide for you and your little ones.” And he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.

There are so many examples of this. Look how God is described here:

Psalm 7:11-13
11 God is a just judge,
And God is angry with the wicked every day.
12 If he does not turn back,
He will sharpen His sword;
He bends His bow and makes it ready.
13 He also prepares for Himself instruments of death;
He makes His arrows into fiery shafts.

And then closely examine what actually happens.

Psalm 7:14-16
14 Behold, the wicked brings forth iniquity;
Yes, he conceives trouble and brings forth falsehood.
15 He made a pit and dug it out,
And has fallen into the ditch which he made.
16 His trouble shall return upon his own head,
And his violent dealing shall come down on his own crown.

I think this is pretty much the entirety of how the Bible both conceals and reveals. As Isaiah 28 says Scripture must be compared with Scripture. Like doing word studies. Speaking of which (and hearkening back to the Psalm text):

Hebrews 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I have considered that, but is it really intentionally vague, or is it just the fact that wisdom is necessarily unintelligible without going through a process that pieces together the context which acts as a key for its decryption? Then again, maybe there's no difference. You just have to make the reader jump through some hoops to build a strong foundation for a more holistic understanding later on.

It reminds me of the old movie trope where a kid joins a dojo and is all eager to learn the dangerous techniques, but the teacher insists on repeating seemingly nonsensical and useless stuff and everybody hates it until months later.

 

[o2b]

I have considered that, but is it really intentionally vague, or is it just the fact that wisdom is necessarily unintelligible without going through a process that pieces together the context which acts as a key for its decryption?

As I dwelt on this post of yours, I kept coming back to how orthodoxy is so mistaken in its interpretations and how there really is not a lot of examination needful to demonstrate this. No doubt, if I am correct, a huge roadblock to extracting truth is being entrenched in paradigms of thought.

Just one example of what I mean. (Digression - I am universalist, but anyway.) Let's take the concept of eternal conscious torment where the soul, whatever that is, is understood to be made to be immortal. Even though:

1 Timothy 6:15-16
15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

But, there are those forever and ever passages in the NT. They are interpretations of the Greek word aion or a form of it. Well, there is some tension, isn't there? Even though there is this text.

Jude 7
7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I mean...set forth as an example? Really? An event whose duration may have been seconds?

Maybe 25 years ago, I had an idea.

Exodus 21:6
6 then his master shall bring him to the judges. He shall also bring him to the door, or to the doorpost, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him forever.

Hmmmm. How long will the slave serve his master? At most, during the entirety of his earthly life.

Anyway, the idea I had was to get the Greek word that the writers of the LXX (Septuagint, Greek translation of the Old Testament and contemporary to the times of Christ) used in this passage.

Sure enough, they used aion.

Conclusion:
On its own, the word cannot possibly always mean eternity. It is dependent on other things.

Once this is understood, the doctrine of eternal conscious torment completely collapses as well as the idea that a person lives after the loss of his physical body, having conscious existence without a functioning brain. But such views are still very much alive and well. HOW???

It's like the Bible allows hooks for falsehood to hang their hats on, but it does not take a lot of analysis to see how fragile the hooks really are.

Related texts:

Matthew 13:42-43
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

Gee, the sun is pretty fiery!

Isaiah 33:14-15
14 The sinners in Zion are afraid;
Fearfulness has seized the hypocrites:
“Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire?
Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?”
15 He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly,
He who despises the gain of oppressions,
Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes,
Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed,
And shuts his eyes from seeing evil:


OK, so there is the entrenchment impediment. Not to mention this entrenchment includes false ideas that are literally the foundation pieces that define purported gospel truth. The truth is out there, but as you so well put it:

the fact that wisdom is necessarily unintelligible without going through a process that pieces together the context which acts as a key for its decryption.

As another example, but very briefly...

There may not be a person in a billion who understands what is meant by Sarah not being able to give birth all her life and then being able to do so in her old age. Without this understanding, the Catholic and orthodox Protestant views of justification completely collapse.

Jesus did say the temple will be razed to the ground, the entire edifice of truth.

 

[Sidis Coruscatis]

On its own, the word cannot possibly always mean eternity. It is dependent on other things.

Once this is understood, the doctrine of eternal conscious torment completely collapses as well as the idea that a person lives after the loss of his physical body, having conscious existence without a functioning brain. But such views are still very much alive and well. HOW???

It's like the Bible allows hooks for falsehood to hang their hats on, but it does not take a lot of analysis to see how fragile the hooks really are.

I remember this was one of the central points in Chesterton's Orthodoxy where he expounds on it:

One accusation against Christianity was that it prevented men, by morbid tears and terrors, from seeking joy and liberty in the bosom of Nature. But another accusation was that it comforted men with a fictitious providence, and put them in a pink-and-white nursery. One great agnostic asked why Nature was not beautiful enough, and why it was hard to be free. Another great agnostic objected that Christian optimism, "the garment of make-believe woven by pious hands," hid from us the fact that Nature was ugly, and that it was impossible to be free. One rationalist had hardly done calling Christianity a nightmare before another began to call it a fool's paradise. This puzzled me; the charges seemed inconsistent. Christianity could not at once be the black mask on a white world, and also the white mask on a black world. The state of the Christian could not be at once so comfortable that he was a coward to cling to it, and so uncomfortable that he was a fool to stand it.

But there's quite a bit more:

I felt that a strong case against Christianity lay in the charge that there is something timid, monkish, and unmanly about all that is called "Christian," especially in its attitude towards resistance and fighting. The great sceptics of the nineteenth century were largely virile. Bradlaugh in an expansive way, Huxley, in a reticent way, were decidedly men. In comparison, it did seem tenable that there was something weak and over patient about Christian counsels. The Gospel paradox about the other cheek, the fact that priests never fought, a hundred things made plausible the accusation that Christianity was an attempt to make a man too like a sheep. I read it and believed it, and if I had read nothing different, I should have gone on believing it. But I read something very different. I turned the next page in my agnostic manual, and my brain turned up-side down. Now I found that I was to hate Christianity not for fighting too little, but for fighting too much. Christianity, it seemed, was the mother of wars. Christianity had deluged the world with blood. I had got thoroughly angry with the Christian, because he never was angry. And now I was told to be angry with him because his anger had been the most huge and horrible thing in human history; because his anger had soaked the earth and smoked to the sun. The very people who reproached Christianity with the meekness and non-resistance of the monasteries were the very people who reproached it also with the violence and valour of the Crusades. It was the fault of poor old Christianity (somehow or other) both that Edward the Confessor did not fight and that Richard Coeur de Leon did. The Quakers (we were told) were the only characteristic Christians; and yet the massacres of Cromwell and Alva were characteristic Christian crimes. What could it all mean? What was this Christianity which always forbade war and always produced wars? What could be the nature of the thing which one could abuse first because it would not fight, and second because it was always fighting? In what world of riddles was born this monstrous murder and this monstrous meekness? The shape of Christianity grew a queerer shape every instant.

He goes on for a while and gives a lengthy conclusion to this apparent misleading nature of Christianity, so I would recommend giving it a read if you haven't.

There had suddenly come into my mind another explanation. Suppose we heard an unknown man spoken of by many men. Suppose we were puzzled to hear that some men said he was too tall and some too short; some objected to his fatness, some lamented his leanness; some thought him too dark, and some too fair. One explanation (as has been already admitted) would be that he might be an odd shape. But there is another explanation. He might be the right shape.
...I went over all the cases, and I found the key fitted so far. The fact that Swinburne was irritated at the unhappiness of Christians and yet more irritated at their happiness was easily explained. It was no longer a complication of diseases in Christianity, but a complication of diseases in Swinburne. The restraints of Christians saddened him simply because he was more hedonist than a healthy man should be. The faith of Christians angered him because he was more pessimist than a healthy man should be. In the same way the Malthusians by instinct attacked Christianity; not because there is anything especially anti-Malthusian about Christianity, but because there is something a little anti-human about Malthusianism.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

 

[mintoots]

The exchanges in this thread have been at the back of my mind, which has somehow lead me to revisit the things that go on inside our bodies. Where the recent posts of this thread had me hooked is in revisiting the notions of identity which started with @Ren's post on Boats A and B. I am tempted to view identity on the scale of the human mind, but I fear we, as participants of this discourse, would be more vulnerable to bias as I believe that it is but natural for us to inevitably deviate from our objectivity toward our personally perceived human essence. When we consider body and mind, where much of our self-perceived identities reside, we will eventually associate and I hope to avoid that as much as possible.

On the matter of discussing identity, I understand that it is inevitable to move throughout scales but I wanted to combine this with the logical precision of scientific units so that we could all have a structure, or so to speak, a skeleton to run these abstractions by. I find that in this thread we swoosh through the quantum and the ethereal within a snap of a finger so it's difficult to keep track at times. Let's establish scale here as a metric unit, as in the number at which we adjust optical zooms for those of you well versed in photography; or simply scale for those of you enamored with maps (myself). This is when 1 unit is to 1 something-something numbers, although I would rather not use numbers exactly as we may get too engrossed in its particulars (like that one time my aunt couldn't sleep because she couldn't figure out where the ten cents went to on her finance ledger). In any case, may we think of scale such that we generally keep this precise structural frame in mind.

Over the weekend, I've come across the magic of organ cross-talk. By this, I am referring to the organs inside the physical body, namely the kidneys, the liver, the heart, the brain, the skin, the fat, the immune system and so on... Our organs have a communication system, as in a kidney is able to release macromolecules or hormones to send distress signals to wherever else in the body to keep human bodies alive. The metabolic nitty-gritty can become rather complicated but the from this general information, we could deductively posit that our organs have software (however we may argue about this) although unlike the human mind at the scale in which we are writing this discourse, we understand little of it. It is also given that the organ has a physical embodiment. At this, it may be fair to explore the concept of identity using these living things.

To return to @Ren's post, I perceive that the question was: what makes a kidney a kidney? What makes a heart a heart? What makes a kidney Wy's kidney or what makes a fat tissue O2b's fat tissue? If a portion of my liver is donated to JohnK, is it still my liver or is it John's? How do we arrive at the identities of these organs?

Firstly, we named them. Hence, we perceived them. To name them, we associated them with their jobs as crudely as we understand them. Kidneys regulate blood, hearts pump it all throughout, etc. At that, I propose that the beginning of identity is in the naming. When we accept something with whatever personal associations we create toward it, we give it an identity. From this point of view, however, identity is relative because after all, what if the Kidney never thought of it as a Kidney, but instead a city? Maybe it's a city of clustered cells. We never really know. We just imposed upon its identity by calling it as such. Since we don't talk to our kidneys, it may even actually tell us that maybe its name is the City of Adam, or something. We don't talk to our kidneys (or so we think that), but there's a probability that we may simply not be aware of the language because of the vast difference in scale between our mind and the kidney's mind. Could we assume for sure that the kidney had a mind? You may say that's preposterous! But what if it did?

This is where it fascinates me. When blood flows through kidneys, the systems therein listen to the rest of the body. If over at the gut, a foreign-body bacteria was identified, the kidney plays a role in regulating our body chemistry so as to encourage immune cells to attack the bacteria. Where is this conversation happening? Is it in our minds? Is it in the scale that we are conversing here? Or is it in the Kidney itself? Or if it's merely a cluster of cells, is the communication happening within the cell? Does the cell have a mind we don't understand or is our mind on the cell even though we don't know it?

At the scale of one cell we could say that its essence is rather direct. Yes? Its functions seem simplistic. Its modus operandi seems clear. Could we say that it doesn't have a sound temporal component because if it did, then it wouldn't have died if we chucked it out of our bodies, right? If we cut our kidneys out, over time, it will die. But see that crazy component? Time. If an organ is taken out of the body and not kept in sufficient conditions, it will degrade, and thus die. So then, what if identity is in the state of being alive? What if identity is so that all the associations to it can be kept alive? If the association is lost, then it is gone.

If the kidney is transported to another body, there, it is still a kidney. Therefore, all associations to it by virtue of its functions are still alive. Hence, its identity is preserved.

But if the perception of the identity is done at a personalized scale, as in Ren's kidney; if Ren donates it to John, it becomes John's kidney. The kidney is still alive, hence preserving its essence as a kidney but the associations to it being Ren's is no longer and this means its identity has been modified. Therefore Ren's kidney, despite still existing physically in John's body, is no longer (as in dead), because that one essential association has been taken away. Thus, Ren's kidney is dead is because it is now John's kidney; hence the identity of Ren's Kidney has been dissolved by this very death. If we can't pin an association to anything anymore for its simple absence, maybe that is death.

....

This leads me to another question that I've been trying to figure out all this time and that is where is the cross point of the physical and temporal mind? If they're separate, where does the spatio-temporal interact? Is it a fulcrum? Is the temporal an energy that encases or superfluously moves throughout all of us? A kidney, when it's dead (as in not transferred to anybody else's body) loses its temporality when it is isolated from the system for which it works----the human body. I wonder if that's where our souls also lie--- suppose we have a soul. I wonder if we die when we can no longer connect to greater system... And I wonder if our souls are in that very connectivity.


Anyway, there's a lot in my head but I need to get food. Also something about this statement has been bothering me:

It’s important too to avoid dichotomous thinking about these basic components.

What if we shouldn't?

But I can't flesh it out yet, so maybe I'll sleep on it again.

 

[John K]

It’s important too to avoid dichotomous thinking about these basic components. They show indeterminacy, yes, yet they do show determinacy too.

What if we shouldn't?

Don't sweat it too much! - it's focused only on the way particles and energy behave at subatomic scales. The various commentaries I've read generally conclude that the problem lies beyond simple ambiguity and is bound up with the possibility that humans don't have the mental equipment to fully conceptualise how reality is behaving at these small scales. Indeed why should we, because we evolved to deal with the world many orders of magnitude greater. So the ambiguity quite probably arises from the way we try and 'see' at this scale rather than necessarily from the reality. On the other hand, a degree of indeterminacy and subjectivity certainly does seem to be present in reality. As I said earlier, this isn't an unsubstantiated theory but a response to the weird empirical behaviour of the world in concrete experiments.

I do wonder if fact whether we should actually expect something that is boundedly indeterminate in reality, given that humans exist. We appear to have choices as acts of will that on the face of it contradict the deterministic theories of nature such as Newton's. Either this is an illusion, or there is a sort of freedom of choice made possible within the physical matrix of reality. There seem to be big philosophical overlaps here across the boundaries between physics and metaphysics, but I'm not competent to articulate these myself - it needs an @Ren maybe?

 

[mintoots]

Indeed why should we, because we evolved to deal with the world many orders of magnitude greater.

It's crazy that we most likely have all of this information imprinted in our DNA but we have little consciousness of its interpretation. It should be that all of our evolutionary knowledge from when we were literally microscopically little is there. And if we had a way to read that and not forget, then we could know where we started.

Another fascinating thing is when a eukaryote transforms to an actual human. What is the identity of a eukaryote? It is within the mother's womb and then tadah! It progresses into this identifiable complex mass of thoughts and emotions with moving torsos and limbs. Ah Idk.

It's going to stick in my head anyway though I wouldn't know when to tinker with it.

 

[mintoots]

There seem to be big philosophical overlaps here across the boundaries between physics and metaphysics, but I'm not competent to articulate these myself - it needs an @Ren maybe?

It's essential to have these discourses interdisciplinarily if we're even going to give ourselves a chance at understanding things. But yes, yes, I think there's more to ponder about on this big philosophical overlaps.

 

[John K]

Edited to provide an example from real life:
I am at a bar, and there is a guy speaking of the Earth being flat.
I am left with no choice but to correct him (given my own nature), but how I do this is integral.
Of course, there is the initial unveiling of 'nonsense', and the calling it into question.
Then, if I allow myself to listen to his arguments (nonsensical as they may be), I open myself up to be willing to be wrong, to be enlightened or even amused by his postulations.
In this continual discourse, I will be given insight into his experience, his perspective, and therefore, I can appreciate it and value it regardless of it being incorrect given what is known at this given moment about the Earth.
However, if I had merely unveiled his nonsensical statements, and left him to stew in that revelation, he'd have no further basis to question it, nor an opportunity to reveal that he could indeed be correct given knowledge of which I was unaware. Thus, I rob myself of the experience, and I rob him of the possibility of being correct.

It's sobering if you take this situation all the way. Suppose I'm a flat-earther and I challenge you to back up your claim that the world is round, how would you prove it to me? I mean hard, compelling proof, not a lot of anecdotes and other people all agreeing with you, but with none of you able to give me first hand evidence. It seems to me that most of what we accept as scientific fact is actually consensus opinion based on a collective act of faith in the small number of people who can actually create and access primary evidence. That's not far removed from the way religions operate.

Of course the situation is intrinsically symmetric - the flat-earther is just as challenged to provide hard proof. The big difference is a social, not a logical one - public opinion holds that the earth is round, and that a flat earth position is rubbish, so the actual very hard challenge of proving the truth is not really addressed by most round earthers.

I hasten to add that I know the world is round lol, but proving it on the spot, in a bar conversation, beyond reasonable doubt .... my goodness there's a challenge.

 

[John K]

It's crazy that we most likely have all of this information imprinted in our DNA but we have little consciousness of its interpretation. It should be that all of our evolutionary knowledge from when we were literally microscopically little is there. And if we had a way to read that and not forget, then we could know where we started.

Another fascinating thing is when a eukaryote transforms to an actual human. What is the identity of a eukaryote? It is within the mother's womb and then tadah! It progresses into this identifiable complex mass of thoughts and emotions with moving torsos and limbs. Ah Idk.

It's going to stick in my head anyway though I wouldn't know when to tinker with it.

The way stuff self organises into people is incredible and fascinating isn't it. When I think about this process my gut tells me that in some sense everything is alive. It only manifests in a way obvious to us when it's assembled in the right way. Electricity is like that - it's present in most forms of matter that we come into contact with, but we only actually experience it when we put things together in a particular way.

 

[mintoots]

The way stuff self organises into people is incredible and fascinating isn't it. When I think about this process my gut tells me that in some sense everything is alive. It only manifests in a way obvious to us when it's assembled in the right way. Electricity is like that - it's present in most forms of matter that we come into contact with, but we only actually experience it when we put things together in a particular way.

Yes! Electricity is another thing for sure... More than electricity but signals and the movement of resources. It's like everything was composed to move these things along for operations and that's it: that's life.

 

[Anomaly]

It's sobering if you take this situation all the way. Suppose I'm a flat-earther and I challenge you to back up your claim that the world is round, how would you prove it to me? I mean hard, compelling proof, not a lot of anecdotes and other people all agreeing with you, but with none of you able to give me first hand evidence. It seems to me that most of what we accept as scientific fact is actually consensus opinion based on a collective act of faith in the small number of people who can actually create and access primary evidence. That's not far removed from the way religions operate.

Of course the situation is intrinsically symmetric - the flat-earther is just as challenged to provide hard proof. The big difference is a social, not a logical one - public opinion holds that the earth is round, and that a flat earth position is rubbish, so the actual very hard challenge of proving the truth is not really addressed by most round earthers.

I hasten to add that I know the world is round lol, but proving it on the spot, in a bar conversation, beyond reasonable doubt .... my goodness there's a challenge.

Haha I love how literally you took my example, John. I promise it was merely a hypothetical, as I tend to avoid such people in general. In bars, or otherwise. ;p

This said, I can completely agree that many things that are touted as 'fact' are indeed opinions. The tell is when you ask them how they know, typically, they will say that it is nearly impossible to know or they will say that they don't know. I think there is a bit of fun in that. Perhaps, that is the point.

 

[Y1gtfmd74i5u]

Here’s what I mean in the philosophy of nothingness: it’s of less absolution than being implied. I can’t create anything, nor do my ideals or ideas make what is, but they are. Nor can I change my ideas or ideals to what is, they just are, and can or will be.
Consciousness and unconsciousness. Beautiful thread @Ren

 

[John K]

Haha I love how literally you took my example, John. I promise it was merely a hypothetical, as I tend to avoid such people in general. In bars, or otherwise. ;p

This said, I can completely agree that many things that are touted as 'fact' are indeed opinions. The tell is when you ask them how they know, typically, they will say that it is nearly impossible to know or they will say that they don't know. I think there is a bit of fun in that. Perhaps, that is the point.

LOL Yes I assumed it probably wasn’t an actual situation Lore. It’s just that I got to exploring some of the flat earther websites a while back - and it was something of an epiphany for me to realise how hard it actually is to refute this sort of thing with a concrete proof rather than an appeal to popular convention.